Dogan v. Rushton

Filing 920070328

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7400

EDDIE DEAN DOGAN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus COLIE L. RUSHTON, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (4:05-cv-03335-HMH)

Submitted:

March 22, 2007

Decided:

March 28, 2007

Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eddie Dean Dogan, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Eddie Dean Dogan seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on 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 Dogan 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, Dogan failed to note specific objections to the magistrate judge's report and 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. Wright v. Collins,

766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). We agree with the district court that Dogan's

objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation were not sufficiently specific. review by failing to Therefore, Dogan has waived appellate file specific objections after

timely

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 -