Holliday v. Johnson

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7894
LAWRENCE D. HOLLIDAY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
GENE M. JOHNSON,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-03-510-2)
Submitted: April 7, 2004 Decided: April 26, 2004
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lawrence D. Holliday, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Lawrence D. Holliday seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).
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 Holliday that failure
to file timely objections to this recommendation would waive
appellate review of a district court order based upon the
recommendation. Despite this warning, Holliday 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 that failure to object will waive appellate review.
Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Holliday 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
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 2 -