Charles v. State of SC

Filing 920080206

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7383

HARRY N. CHARLES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus SOUTH CAROLINA, STATE OF; FLORENCE COUNTY; CECILIA REYNOLDS, Warden of Kershaw Correctional Institution, Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:07-cv-00573-DCN)

Submitted:

January 15, 2008

Decided:

February 6, 2008

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Harry N. Charles, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, SOUTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Harry N. Charles seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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 Charles that failure to timely file specific objections of a to this recommendation court order could waive the

appellate

review

district

based

upon

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). Charles has waived appellate review of the

magistrate judge's conclusion regarding the timeliness of his habeas corpus petition by failing to lodge that specific objection to the magistrate judge's recommendation after receiving proper notice of the consequences of the failure to object. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. facts and legal We dispense with oral argument because the are adequately presented in the

contentions

- 2 -

materials

before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

- 3 -