Cline v. Ballard ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-6577
WILLIAM CLINE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DAVID BALLARD, Warden, Mount Olive Correctional Complex,
Respondent - Appellee,
and
THOMAS MCBRIDE, Warden, Mount Olive Correctional Complex;
HOWARD PAINTER, Warden, Mt. Olive Correctional Complex,
Respondents.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr.,
District Judge. (2:01-cv-00295)
Submitted: June 26, 2008 Decided: July 3, 2008
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Cline, Appellant Pro Se. Dawn Ellen Warfield, Deputy
Attorney General, Robert David Goldberg, Allen Hayes Loughry, II,
Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST
VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Cline 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 Cline 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, Cline 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). Cline has waived appellate review by failing to
timely file specific objections to the magistrate judge’s report
after receiving proper notice.* Accordingly, we deny a certificate
of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
*
Contrary to Cline’s assertion on appeal, his objections to
the Respondent’s motion for summary judgment cannot serve as
objections to the magistrate judge’s subsequent report and
recommendation.
- 2 -
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 -