Michael Moore v. Director Jon Ozmint

Filing 920091124

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7400

MICHAEL LEWIS MOORE, a/k/a Michael L. Moore, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DIRECTOR JON OZMINT, South Carolina Department of Corrections; MCKITHER BODISON, Warden Lieber Correctional Institution, Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (8:08-cv-02036-GRA)

Submitted:

November 17, 2009

Decided:

November 24, 2009

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Lewis Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Michael court's order Lewis Moore relief seeks on his to 28 appeal U.S.C. the district (2006)

denying

§ 2254

petition. judge

The district court referred this case to a magistrate to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). The

pursuant

magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Moore 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 and a

thirty-day extension of time in which to file objections, Moore failed to object 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.

Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Moore

Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).

has waived appellate review by failing to file 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials

2

before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process. DISMISSED

3