Robert Shirley v. Collie Rushton
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
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)
August 20, 2009
Decided: August 24, 2009
Before WILKINSON and Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
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
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
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
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?