Roger Ashworth v. Warden Cartledge

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 6:11-cv-01472-JMC. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998902756]. Mailed to: Roger Ashworth. [12-6807]

Appeal: 12-6807

Doc: 8

Filed: 07/26/2012

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6807

ROGER ASHWORTH,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN CARTLEDGE, McCormick Correctional Institution,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville.
J. Michelle Childs, District
Judge. (6:11-cv-01472-JMC)

Submitted:

July 19, 2012

Decided:

July 26, 2012

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roger Ashworth, Appellant Pro Se.
Donald John Zelenka, Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Alphonso Simon, Jr., Assistant
Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-6807

Doc: 8

Filed: 07/26/2012

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Roger Ashworth 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. 2012).
The

magistrate

advised

judge

Ashworth

recommended

that

failure

to

that

relief

file

be

timely

denied

and

and

specific

objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review
of a district court order based upon the recommendation.
The
magistrate

timely

judge’s

filing

of

recommendation

specific
is

objections

necessary

to

to

a

preserve

appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when
the

parties

have

noncompliance.
Cir.

1985);

been

warned

of

the

consequences

of

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

also

Thomas v.

Arn,

474

U.S.

140

(1985).

Ashworth 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

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
DISMISSED

2