Chandler v. Barnett, (4th Cir. 2009)

Text

---

 

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6322

STEVE CHANDLER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

SANDY BARNETT,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (8:08-cv-00930-HMH)

Submitted: June 18, 2009 Decided: June 24, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steve Chandler, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Creighton Waters,

Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Steve Chandler appeals the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Chandler 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, Chandler 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).

Chandler 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.

---