Michael Moore v. Director Jon Ozmint

Filing 920091124

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7400 MICHAEL LEWIS MOORE, a/k/a Michael L. Moore, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DIRECTOR JON OZMINT,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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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?