Boston v. Warden, Lee Correctional Institution , 286 F. App'x 1 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-6209
FRANK BOSTON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN, LEE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; SOUTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (9:07-cv-01861-PMD)
Submitted: June 26, 2008 Decided: July 1, 2008
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frank Boston, Appellant Pro Se. Erin Mary Farrell, John Eric
Kaufmann, MCKAY, CAUTHEN, SETTANA & STUBLEY, PA, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Frank Boston, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the
district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241(2000) petition. Boston’s case was referred 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 Boston that failure
to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive
appellate review of a district court order based upon the
recommendation. Despite this warning, Boston failed to timely
object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.
The timely filing of 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
that failure to object will waive appellate review. Wright v.
Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Boston has waived appellate
review by failing to file timely objections after receiving proper
notice. We accordingly 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 -