Colclough v. Sumter Lee Regional Detention Center , 262 F. App'x 538 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-7510
    RONNIE COLCLOUGH,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    SUMTER LEE REGIONAL DETENTION CENTER,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
    Judge. (6:07-cv-02910-HMH)
    Submitted:   January 17, 2008              Decided:   January 28, 2008
    Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Ronnie Colclough, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Ronnie Colclough seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
     (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 Colclough 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, Colclough 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).   Colclough has waived appellate review by failing
    to timely file specific 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
    the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-7510

Citation Numbers: 262 F. App'x 538

Judges: Traxler, Shedd, Duncan

Filed Date: 1/28/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024