Sherman Graham v. Joseph McFadden

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cv-01680-TMC. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999588653]. Mailed to: Sherman Graham. [15-6256]

Appeal: 15-6256

Doc: 9

Filed: 05/22/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6256

SHERMAN GRAHAM,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JOSEPH MCFADDEN, Warden, Lieber Correctional Institution,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken.
Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(1:14-cv—01680-TMC)

Submitted:

May 19, 2015

Decided:

May 22, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sherman Graham, Appellant Pro Se.
Donald John Zelenka, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Kaycie Smith Timmons, Assistant
Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6256

Doc: 9

Filed: 05/22/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Sherman Graham 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

The

and

magistrate

advised

judge

Graham

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

841,

845-46

(4th

Cir.

1985);

also

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).

Graham has waived appellate

review

objections

proper

by

failing

notice.

to

timely

file

Accordingly,

we

deny

a

after

receiving

certificate

of

appealability and dismiss the appeal.
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

2