Robert Smart v. Cecilia Reynolds

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to compel [998305097-2] in 09-8262, denying Motion to compel [998309603-2] in 09-8262, denying Motion to compel [998335447-2] in 09-8262; denying Motion for default judgment [998305097-3] in 09-8262, denying Motion for default judgment [998309601-2] in 09-8262, denying Motion for default judgment [998316531-2] in 10-6227, denying Motion for default judgment [998348239-2] in 09-8262, denying Motion for default judgment [998358277-2] in 10-6227; denying Motion to present evidence and to get an expert on toxic poisoning's opinion [998408401-2] in 09-8262, denying Motion for explanation [998413368-2] in 09-8262. Originating case number: 8:08-cv-03918-GRA. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998415210] [09-8262, 10-6227]

Download PDF
Robert Smart v. Cecilia Reynolds Doc. 0 Case: 09-8262 Document: 30 Date Filed: 08/31/2010 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8262 ROBERT Smart, DALE SMART, a/k/a Robert Smart, a/k/a Robert D. Petitioner Appellant, v. CECILIA REYNOLDS, Warden Kershaw Correctional Institution, Respondent Appellee. No. 10-6227 ROBERT Smart, DALE SMART, a/k/a Robert Smart, a/k/a Robert D. Petitioner Appellant, v. CECILIA REYNOLDS, Warden Kershaw Correctional Institution, Respondent Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (8:08-cv-03918-GRA) Submitted: August 26, 2010 Decided: August 31, 2010 Dockets.Justia.com Case: 09-8262 Document: 30 Date Filed: 08/31/2010 Page: 2 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Dale Smart, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Alphonso Simon, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 Case: 09-8262 Document: 30 Date Filed: 08/31/2010 Page: 3 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Robert Dale Smart seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2006) The petition district and the court's order Smart's 28 denying 2254 reconsideration. petition to a court referred to magistrate judge pursuant U.S.C.A. 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2010). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Smart that failure to file timely and specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the 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 Smart Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). has waived appellate review of the claims raised in his 2254 petition by failing to file timely and specific objections after receiving proper notice. Turning order unless denying a to Smart's appeal the judge of the is a district not court's reconsideration, justice of order issues appealable of circuit certificate appealability. 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 3 Case: 09-8262 Document: 30 Date Filed: 08/31/2010 Page: 4 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." (2006); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) 473, 484-85 (2000); see We have Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). independently reviewed the record and conclude that Smart has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Smart's pending motions, deny a certificate dispense of appealability, oral argument and dismiss the the appeals. and We legal with because facts contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 4

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?