Hamm v. State of South Carolina , 235 F. App'x 974 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-8062
MICHAEL E. HAMM, a/k/a Michael Eugene Hamm,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; HENRY MCMASTER,
Attorney General of South Carolina; WARDEN,
Ridgeland Correctional Institution,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (0:06-cv-02942-HMH)
Submitted: May 31, 2007 Decided: June 5, 2007
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael E. Hamm, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael E. Hamm seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)
petition. 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 Hamm that
failure to file timely, specific objections to this recommendation
could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon
the recommendation. Despite this warning, Hamm filed only generic,
non-specific objections in which he simply restated his substantive
claims.
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). Hamm 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 also deny Hamm’s motion for an evidentiary hearing.
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 -