Danny Stephens v. A. Padula

Filing 920090903

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6673

DANNY RAY STEPHENS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. A. J. PADULA, Warden, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (0:08-cv-00283-PMD)

Submitted:

August 26, 2009

Decided: September 3, 2009

Before TRAXLER, Judges.

Chief

Judge,

and

GREGORY

and

SHEDD,

Circuit

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Danny Ray Stephens, Appellant Pro Se. Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, Appellee.

Melody Jane Brown, South Carolina, for

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Danny Ray Stephens, a South Carolina prisoner, 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). and The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied Stephens that failure to timely file specific

advised

objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

Despite this warning, Stephens filed only a general objection to the magistrate judge's 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.

See United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616,

621-22 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 551 U.S. 1157 (2007); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). Stephens has waived appellate

review by failing to file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal.

2

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

would

process.

DISMISSED

3