Coleman v. Harrison, (4th Cir. 2000)
Linked as:
Text
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6612 KENNETH COLEMAN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus
RICKIE HARRISON, Warden; CHARLES M. CONDON,
Attorney General of the State of South
Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.
(CA-99-3930-2-19AJ)
Submitted: September 8, 2000 Decided: September 18, 2000
Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir-
cuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kenneth Coleman, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Alan Jacobs, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM
Kenneth Coleman seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). Coleman’s case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Coleman 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, Coleman failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.
The timely filing of 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. See Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. We accordingly 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
Sponsored links
This document cites
- US Code - Title 28: Judiciary and Judicial Procedure - 28 USC 2254 - Sec. 2254. State custody; remedies in Federal courts
- US Code - Title 28: Judiciary and Judicial Procedure - 28 USC 636 - Sec. 636. Jurisdiction, powers, and temporary assignment
- U.S. Supreme Court - Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - Garcia Jay Wright, Appellant, v. George Collins, Warden, Maryland Penitentiary; Dr. Berry; Officer Larry Donnell, Appellees., 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985)
See other documents that cite the same legislation
