Larry Kirby v. Warden
Filing
UNPUBLISHED AUTHORED OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:09-cv-02425-HMH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998443353] [10-7082]
<![CDATA[
Larry Kirby v. Warden
Doc. 0
Case: 10-7082 Document: 9
Date Filed: 10/12/2010
Page: 1
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7082 LARRY GORDON KIRBY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN, Perry Correctional Institution, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:09-cv-02425-HMH) Submitted: September 30, 2010 Decided: October 12, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Gordon Kirby, Appellant Pro Se. Roy F. Laney, Heath McAlvin Stewart, III, RILEY, POPE & LANEY, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina; Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Dockets.Justia.com
Case: 10-7082 Document: 9
Date Filed: 10/12/2010
Page: 2
PER CURIAM: Larry G. Kirby 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 Kirby that failure to file specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The filing of specific objections to a magistrate
judge's recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); Wright v. see also
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
Kirby has waived appellate
review by failing to file specific 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
]]>
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?
