Skeeter v. Johnson , 357 F. App'x 524 ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7717
HENRY SKEETER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of
Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:09-cv-00124-RAJ-TEM)
Submitted: December 15, 2009 Decided: December 21, 2009
Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Henry Skeeter, Appellant Pro Se. Joshua Mikell Didlake,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Henry Skeeter seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition.
The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). The magistrate
judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Skeeter 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, Skeeter failed to 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).
Skeeter has waived appellate review by failing to timely file
specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly,
we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, deny Skeeter’s motion to appoint counsel, and
dismiss the appeal.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
2
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3