Palmer v. Johnson , 258 F. App'x 609 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-7125
    ROBERT PALMER,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    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. (2:06-cv-00531-RAJ)
    Submitted:   December 13, 2007            Decided:   December 19, 2007
    Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Robert Palmer, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III,
    OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Robert Palmer seeks to appeal the district court’s order
    denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (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 Palmer 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, Palmer 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).   Palmer 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, 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: 07-7125

Citation Numbers: 258 F. App'x 609

Judges: Niemeyer, Motz, Shedd

Filed Date: 12/19/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024