Clifton Davis v. Robert Stevenson

Filing 920100303

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7472

CLIFTON L. DAVIS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. ROBERT STEVENSON, Warden, BRCI, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (9:08-cv-03255-GRA)

Submitted:

February 25, 2010

Decided:

March 3, 2010

Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clifton L. Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Clifton L. Davis 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).

The magistrate

judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Davis that failure to file timely specific objections to this

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order Davis based failed upon to the file recommendation. specific Despite to this the warning,

objections

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 Davis

Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). has waived appellate review by failing to 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials

2

before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process. DISMISSED

3