Richardson v. Eagleton , 100 F. App'x 951 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6672
CURTIS DALE RICHARDSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
WILLIE EAGLETON, Warden, Evans Correctional
Institution; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney
General, State of South Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (CA-02-401-23)
Submitted: June 10, 2004 Decided: June 21, 2004
Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Curtis Dale Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Creighton Waters,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Curtis Dale Richardson 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 Richardson 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, and the district court’s
order granting Richardson an extension of time, Richardson failed
to file timely objections 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. See
Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Richardson 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 -