Robert Shirley v. Collie Rushton

Filing 920090824

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8213

ROBERT CHRISTOPHER SHIRLEY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. COLLIE RUSHTON, Warden of McCormick Correctional Institute, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (0:07-cv-02996-HFF)

Submitted:

August 20, 2009

Decided: August 24, 2009

Before WILKINSON and Senior Circuit Judge.

MICHAEL,

Circuit

Judges,

and

HAMILTON,

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Christopher Shirley, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Samuel Creighton Waters, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Robert Christopher Shirley seeks to appeal the

district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The district court referred this case to a

magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and

advised Shirley that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the to recommendation. object to the Despite this warning, judge's

Shirley

failed

magistrate

recommendation. The magistrate timely filing of specific is objections to to a

judge's

recommendation

necessary

preserve

appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of

noncompliance. Cir. 1985); has see

Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th also Thomas v. appellate Arn, review 474 by U.S. 140 (1985). to file

Shirley

waived

failing

objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability, deny leave 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

2

before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.

DISMISSED

3