Danny Stephens v. A. Padula
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
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)
August 26, 2009
Decided: September 3, 2009
Before TRAXLER, Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
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
appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of
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.
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
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?