Charles v. State of SC

Filing 920080206

Opinion

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7383 HARRY N. CHARLES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus SOUTH CAROLINA, STATE OF; FLORENCE COUNTY;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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 -

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?