Tron Anderson v. Warden Bodison
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
TRON ANDERSON, Petitioner Appellant, v. WARDEN MCKITHER BODISON, Respondent Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (8:08-cv-02260-SB)
July 23, 2009
July 30, 2009
Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tron Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. James Anthony Mabry, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Tron Anderson 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).
judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Anderson 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, Anderson 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).
Anderson 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?