Cooper v. Ward ( 1998 )


Menu:
  • UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    ANDREW COOPER, a/k/a Anderson
    Cooper,
    Petitioner-Appellant,
    v.
    No. 97-6422
    ROBERT E. WARD, Warden;
    CHARLES C. CONDON, Attorney
    General,
    Respondents-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia.
    Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge.
    (CA-96-944-3-17BC)
    Submitted: April 29, 1998
    Decided: May 15, 1998
    Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS,
    Circuit Judges.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    _________________________________________________________________
    COUNSEL
    Andrew Cooper, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Dep-
    uty Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    _________________________________________________________________
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his
    motion filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (1994) (current version at 
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2254
     (West 1994 & Supp. 1998)). Appellant's case was
    referred to a magistrate judge under 
    28 U.S.C. § 636
    (b)(1)(B) (1994).
    The magistrate judge recommended denying relief and advised
    Appellant that failure to file timely, specific objections to the recom-
    mendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based
    upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Appellant failed to
    so object to the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations and
    instead raised for the first time an ineffective assistance of counsel
    claim not presented to the magistrate judge.
    The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge's find-
    ings and recommendations 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 Thomas
    v. Arn, 
    474 U.S. 140
    , 147-48 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 
    766 F.2d 841
    ,
    845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 
    727 F.2d 91
    , 94
    (4th Cir. 1984). Appellant has waived appellate review by failing to
    file specific objections after receiving proper notice. See Howard v.
    Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 
    932 F.2d 505
    , 507-09 (6th Cir.
    1991); Lockert v. Faulkner, 
    843 F.2d 1015
    , 1019 (7th Cir. 1988).
    With regard to Appellant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim
    raised for the first time in the objections to the magistrate judge's rec-
    ommendations, we find that the district court properly declined to
    address that claim. See United States v. George , 
    971 F.2d 1113
    ,
    1117-18 (4th Cir. 1992) (holding that district court must consider all
    arguments directed at issue, including those not presented to the mag-
    istrate judge, "provided that proper objection to the magistrate's pro-
    posed finding . . . has been made and the appellant's right to de novo
    2
    review by the district court thereby established"). We accordingly
    deny a certificate of probable cause and dismiss the appeal. We dis-
    pense 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
    3