Cooper v. Ward ( 1998 )

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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