Frank Boston v. Warden, Lee Correctional Insti

Filing 920080701

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6209

FRANK BOSTON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN, LEE CORRECTIONAL DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, INSTITUTION; SOUTH CAROLINA

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (9:07-cv-01861-PMD)

Submitted:

June 26, 2008

Decided:

July 1, 2008

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frank Boston, Appellant Pro Se. Erin Mary Farrell, John Eric Kaufmann, MCKAY, CAUTHEN, SETTANA & STUBLEY, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Frank Boston, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. Boston's case was referred to a magistrate judge The magistrate judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000).

recommended that relief be denied and advised Boston 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, Boston failed to timely object to the magistrate judge's recommendation. The timely filing of 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 that failure to object will waive appellate review. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Wright v.

See generally

Boston has waived appellate

review by failing to file timely objections after receiving proper notice. We accordingly deny a certificate of appealability and We dispense with oral argument because the are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the

dismiss the appeal. facts and legal before

contentions the court

materials

would

decisional process. DISMISSED

- 2 -