Raymond Ford, Jr. v. Gene Johnson

Filing 920091204

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7786

RAYMOND ALEXANDER FORD, JR., 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. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (2:09-cv-00143-RBS-JEB)

Submitted:

November 19, 2009

Decided:

December 4, 2009

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Raymond Alexander Ford, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Craig Stallard, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Raymond A. Ford 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 Ford 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, Ford 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 Ford

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

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.

Although Ford contends on appeal that he timely filed in the district court a motion for extension of time to file objections, the district court docket sheet reflects no such filing.

2

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

would

process. DISMISSED

3