Colclough v. Sumter Lee Regional
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
RONNIE COLCLOUGH, Petitioner - Appellant, versus SUMTER LEE REGIONAL DETENTION CENTER, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (6:07-cv-02910-HMH)
January 17, 2008
January 28, 2008
Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronnie Colclough, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Ronnie Colclough seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (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 Colclough 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, Colclough failed to object to the magistrate judge's 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). Colclough 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 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.
- 2 -
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?