Chamberlain v. Johnson , 293 F. App'x 980 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 08-7059
    BETTY J. CHAMBERLAIN,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    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. (2:07-cv-00276-RAJ-JEB)
    Submitted:   September 16, 2008       Decided:   September 24, 2008
    Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Betty J. Chamberlain, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey,
    III, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Betty J. Chamberlain seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order denying relief on her 
    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 Chamberlain 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,   Chamberlain    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).      Chamberlain 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: 08-7059

Citation Numbers: 293 F. App'x 980

Judges: Motz, Traxler, Shedd

Filed Date: 9/24/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024