Felipe Trujillo v. John Pate
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999524504-2] Originating case number: 2:14-cv-00361-TMC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999568608]. Mailed to: Felipe Trujilo. [15-6167]
Appeal: 15-6167
Doc: 11
Filed: 04/21/2015
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6167
FELIPE TRUJILLO,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JOHN PATE, Warden, Allendale Correctional Institution,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(2:14-cv-00361-TMC)
Submitted:
April 16, 2015
Decided:
April 21, 2015
Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Felipe Trujillo, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior
Assistant
Attorney
General,
Melody
Jane
Brown,
Assistant
Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-6167
Doc: 11
Filed: 04/21/2015
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Felipe Trujillo seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. *
The
district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant
to
28
U.S.C.
recommended
§ 636(b)(1)(B)
that
relief
be
(2012).
denied
and
The
magistrate
advised
judge
Trujillo
that
failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could
waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the
recommendation.
The timely 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.
Wright v.
Collins,
see
766
F.2d
Thomas v.
Arn,
appellate
review
474
by
841,
U.S.
845-46
140
failing
receiving proper notice.
(4th
(1985).
to
timely
Cir.
1985);
Trujillo
file
has
objections
also
waived
after
Accordingly, we deny Trujillo’s motion
for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
*
To the extent that Trujillo also seeks to appeal the
district court’s denial of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion, we
lack jurisdiction to consider that order because he did not file
a notice of appeal until after the appeal period expired.
See
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), (a)(4)(B)(ii); Bowles v. Russell,
551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).
2
Appeal: 15-6167
Doc: 11
Filed: 04/21/2015
Pg: 3 of 3
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions
are
adequately
presented
in
the
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3
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?