Correy David v. Gene Johnson
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
CORREY SHAVANTE J. DAVID, Petitioner - Appellant, v. GENE M. JOHNSON, Corrections, Director, Virginia Department of
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-00396-RAJ-JEB)
October 21, 2008
October 28, 2008
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Correy Shavante J. David, Appellant Pro Se. Bryden, II, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
James Robert OF VIRGINIA,
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Correy Shavante J. David seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)
The district court referred this case to a magistrate to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The
magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised David 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,
David failed to object to the magistrate judge's recommendation. The magistrate timely filing of specific is objections to to a
appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of
Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th David
Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice. a certificate of appealability, deny Accordingly, we deny application to
proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
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?