Henry Skeeter v. Gene Johnson

Filing 920091221

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7717

HENRY SKEETER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. GENE M. JOHNSON, Corrections, Director of the Virginia Department of

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:09-cv-00124-RAJ-TEM)

Submitted:

December 15, 2009

Decided:

December 21, 2009

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henry Skeeter, Appellant Pro Se. Joshua Mikell Didlake, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Henry Skeeter 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 Skeeter 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, Skeeter 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. Cir. 1985); see

Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).

Skeeter has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Skeeter's motion to appoint counsel, 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