Shaheen Cabbagestalk v. Bryan Stirling ( 2021 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-7688
SHAHEEN CABBAGESTALK, a/k/a James Cabbagestalk,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
BRYAN P. STIRLING,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Orangeburg. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (5:20-cv-01572-RMG)
Submitted: March 23, 2021 Decided: March 29, 2021
Before THACKER, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Shaheen Cabbagestalk, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel Roy Settana, Jr., Alexander Paul Zuraff,
MCKAY FIRM, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Shaheen Cabbagestalk seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. The district court referred
this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge
recommended that Cabbagestalk’s § 2254 petition be denied and advised Cabbagestalk that
failure to file timely, specific 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. Martin v. Duffy, 858
F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846-47 (4th Cir. 1985); see
also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154-55 (1985). Although Cabbagestalk received proper
notice and filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, he has waived
appellate review because the objections were not specific to the particularized legal
recommendations made by the magistrate judge. See Martin, 858 F.3d at 245 (holding
that, “to preserve for appeal an issue in a magistrate judge’s report, a party must object to
the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to
alert the district court of the true ground for the objection” (internal quotation marks
omitted)). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
2
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
3