Daniel Sherman v. Michael McCall

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to Excuse Application of 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1) [998891734-2]. Originating case number: 5:10-cv-02571-JFA. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998924992]. Mailed to: Daniel Sherman. [12-6777]

Appeal: 12-6777

Doc: 10

Filed: 08/27/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6777

DANIEL EUGENE SHERMAN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL MCCALL, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg.
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.,
District Judge. (5:10-cv-02571-JFA)

Submitted:

August 22, 2012

Decided: August 27, 2012

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daniel Eugene Sherman, Appellant Pro Se.
Donald John Zelenka,
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Brendan McDonald, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-6777

Doc: 10

Filed: 08/27/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Daniel
court’s

order

petition.

Eugene

denying

Sherman
relief

seeks

on

his

to

appeal

28

U.S.C.

the

district

§ 2254

(2006)

The district court referred this case to a magistrate

judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp.
2012).

The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied

and advised Sherman that failure to file timely objections to
this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district
court order based upon the recommendation.
Sherman

one

extension

of

time

to

file

The court granted
objections,

but

no

objections were forthcoming.
The
magistrate

timely

judge’s

filing

of

specific

recommendation

is

objections

necessary

to

to

a

preserve

appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when
the

parties

have

1985);

Sherman

has

warned

of

the

see

also

waived

Thomas v.
appellate

Arn,

474

review

by

objections after receiving proper notice.
merit

in

failure

Sherman’s
to

Accordingly,

consequences

of

Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th

noncompliance.
Cir.

been

motion

object
we

deny

to

asking
the

that

this

U.S.

failing

appealability and dismiss the appeal.

2

(1985).
to

file

Further, we find no
court

magistrate

motion

140

and

to

excuse

judge’s
a

his

report.

certificate

of

Appeal: 12-6777

Doc: 10

Filed: 08/27/2012

Pg: 3 of 3

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

DISMISSED

3