Steve Chandler v. Sandy Barnett
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
STEVE CHANDLER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. SANDY BARNETT, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (8:08-cv-00930-HMH)
June 18, 2009
June 24, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Steve Chandler, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Creighton Waters, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Steve denying his 28 Chandler U.S.C. appeals the district petition. court's The order
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 Chandler 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, Chandler 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
noncompliance. Cir. 1985); see
Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
Chandler has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly,
we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional
process. DISMISSED 2
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?