Abdul Suda v. Robert Stevenson

Filing 402869135

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 3:09-cv-01077-MBS Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998370669] [10-6376]

Abdul Suda v. Robert Stevenson

Doc. 402869135

Case: 10-6376

Document: 7

Date Filed: 06/30/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6376

ABDUL M. SUDA, Petitioner ­ Appellant, v. ROBERT STEVENSON, Warden, Respondent ­ Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (3:09-cv-01077-MBS)

Submitted:

June 24, 2010

Decided:

June 30, 2010

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Abdul M. Suda, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-6376

Document: 7

Date Filed: 06/30/2010

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Abdul M. Suda 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.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2010). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and

advised Suda that failure to file timely 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 Except

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

as to his claims that he was denied due process during his sentencing hearing and that he had difficulty understanding and communicating during the plea hearing, Suda has waived appellate review notice. Concerning the two issues to which Suda did file by failing to file objections after receiving proper

objections, the district court's order accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and denying the § 2254 petition is not appealable unless a circuit 2 justice or judge issues a

Case: 10-6376

Document: 7

Date Filed: 06/30/2010

Page: 3

certificate of appealability. certificate of appealability

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). will not issue absent

A "a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). relief on the merits, that a When the district court denies satisfies would this standard that claims 473, by the is 484

prisoner

demonstrating district debatable

reasonable of v.

jurists the

find

court's or

assessment Slack

constitutional 529 U.S.

wrong.

McDaniel,

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. at 484-85. that We have Suda independently has not made reviewed the Slack, 529 U.S. the record and

conclude

requisite

showing.

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 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process. DISMISSED

3