Davis v. State of South Carolina , 272 F. App'x 307 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 08-6181
    THOMAS LOUIS DAVIS,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; PHILLIP FOOTE,
    Respondents - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Beaufort.    G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
    Judge. (9:07-cv-03621-GRA)
    Submitted:   March 27, 2008                 Decided:   April 4, 2008
    Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Thomas Louis Davis, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Thomas Louis Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
     (2000) petition.   The
    district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to
    
    28 U.S.C. § 636
    (b)(1)(B) (2000).   The magistrate judge recommended
    that relief be denied and advised Davis that failure to file
    specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate
    review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.
    Despite this warning, the objections Davis filed merely reiterated
    his previous arguments and did not specifically object to the
    magistrate judge’s recommendation.
    The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate
    judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of
    the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been
    warned of the consequences of noncompliance.    Wright v. Collins,
    
    766 F.2d 841
    , 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 
    474 U.S. 140
     (1985).   Davis has waived appellate review by failing to
    timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice.
    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
    appeal.
    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
    legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
    the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-6181

Citation Numbers: 272 F. App'x 307

Judges: Traxler, Duncan, Hamilton

Filed Date: 4/4/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024