Victor Nutter v. Adrian Hoke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 6:09-cv-01174. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998535803] [10-6685]

Victor Nutter v. Adrian Hoke

Doc. 0

Case: 10-6685

Document: 14

Date Filed: 03/02/2011

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6685

VICTOR NUTTER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. ADRIAN HOKE, Warden, Respondent ­ Appellee, and TERESA WAID, Warden, Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Parkersburg. Joseph R. Goodwin, Chief District Judge. (6:09-cv-01174)

Submitted:

February 24, 2011

Decided:

March 2, 2011

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Victor Nutter, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-6685

Document: 14

Date Filed: 03/02/2011

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Victor Nutter 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 Nutter that failure to file timely 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 Nutter

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

has waived appellate review by failing to file 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 before contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional

would

process. DISMISSED

2