Smith v. Rushton , 201 F. App'x 915 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6785
DAVID DWIGHT SMITH,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
COLLIE RUSHTON, Warden; HENRY MCMASTER,
Attorney General,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (6:06-cv-00338-GRA)
Submitted: September 26, 2006 Decided: October 2, 2006
Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Dwight Smith, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
David Dwight Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s
order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition without prejudice.
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 Smith that failure to
file timely and specific objections to this recommendation could
waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the
recommendation. Despite this warning, Smith’s objections to the
magistrate judge’s recommendation were non-specific.
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). Smith has waived appellate review by failing to
timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and Smith’s
motion for appointment of counsel, 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 -