John Robinson v. SC Dept PPPS ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 17-7027
    JOHN C. ROBINSON,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION
    PAROLE AND PARDON SERVICES; WARDEN, BROAD RIVER
    CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
    Respondents - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken.
    Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (1:16-cv-03324-TMC)
    Submitted: December 19, 2017                                Decided: December 21, 2017
    Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    John C. Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Tommy Evans, Jr., SOUTH CAROLINA
    DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE & PARDON SERVICE, Columbia, South
    Carolina; Christina Catoe Bigelow, SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
    CORRECTIONS, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    John C. Robinson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28
    U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge
    pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that
    relief be denied and advised Robinson that failure to file timely objections to this
    recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the
    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).
    Robinson has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper
    notice. Accordingly, we deny 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 before this court and argument would not aid the
    decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-7027

Filed Date: 12/21/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021