Skipper v. Kenworth ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6236
LAWRENCE W. SKIPPER, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
GEORGE KENWORTH,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior
District Judge. (1:06-cv-00709-WLO)
Submitted: July 25, 2007 Decided: August 17, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lawrence W. Skipper, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe
DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lawrence W. Skipper, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s order accepting the report and recommendation of the
magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition
without prejudice for failure to exhaust his state court remedies.
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 Skipper’s § 2254 petition be dismissed and advised
Skipper that failure to file timely and specific objections to this
recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court
order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Skipper
failed to file specific objections to the magistrate judge's
recommendation. Rather, Skipper filed only a notice of appeal that
was construed by the district court as a general objection to the
magistrate judge’s report and 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. See Wright v.
Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Skipper has waived appellate review by
failing to timely file specific objections after receiving proper
notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
- 2 -
dismiss the appeal. We also deny leave to proceed in forma
pauperis on 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
- 3 -