Cuffee v. Johnson

Filing 920080527

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7581

MARK LAVON CUFFEE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. GENE M. JOHNSON, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:07-cv-00195-RAJ)

Submitted: May 22, 2008

Decided:

May 27, 2008

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark Lavon Cuffee, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Mark Lavon Cuffee 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 Cuffee 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, Cuffee 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). Cuffee has waived appellate review by failing to

timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability; deny Cuffee's motions for appointment of counsel, for transcripts at government expense, and for leave to proceed in forma pauperis; and dismiss the appeal.

- 2 -

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

- 3 -