Allen v. Ballard , 354 F. App'x 827 ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6524
STANFORD T. ALLEN, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DAVID BALLARD, Warden,
Respondent – Appellee,
and
THOMAS L. MCBRIDE, Warden,
Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, Senior
District Judge. (1:06-cv-00597)
Submitted: September 24, 2009 Decided: December 8, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stanford T. Allen, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Robert David
Goldberg, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA,
Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Stanford T. Allen, Jr., appeals the district court’s
order granting summary judgment in favor of the Respondent 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 Allen 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, Allen failed to object specifically 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). Allen
has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific
objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Allen’s motion for 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
2
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3