George Jones v. Kenneth Nelson ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • USCA4 Appeal: 22-6382      Doc: 5        Filed: 07/26/2022     Pg: 1 of 2
    UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 22-6382
    GEORGE A. JONES, a/k/a George Albert Jones,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    KENNETH NELSON, Warden,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
    Orangeburg. Joseph Dawson, III, District Judge. (5:21-cv-01987-JD)
    Submitted: July 21, 2022                                            Decided: July 26, 2022
    Before MOTZ, HARRIS, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    George A. Jones, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    USCA4 Appeal: 22-6382         Doc: 5      Filed: 07/26/2022     Pg: 2 of 2
    PER CURIAM:
    George A. Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant
    to 
    28 U.S.C. § 636
    (b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and
    advised Jones that failure to file timely, specific objections to this recommendation could
    waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the 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 of the consequences of noncompliance. Martin v. Duffy, 
    858 F.3d 239
    , 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins, 
    766 F.2d 841
    , 846-47 (4th Cir. 1985); see
    also Thomas v. Arn, 
    474 U.S. 140
    , 154-55 (1985). Jones has waived appellate review by
    failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation 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 this court and argument would not aid the
    decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 22-6382

Filed Date: 7/26/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 7/28/2022