Jabbar Straws v. Robert Stevenson, III

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:13-cv-03484-BHH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999656353]. Mailed to: Jabbar Straws. [15-6502]

Appeal: 15-6502

Doc: 6

Filed: 09/09/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6502

JABBAR JOMO STRAWS, a/k/a Jabbar J. Straws,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
MR. ROBERT M. STEVENSON, III, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg.
Bruce H. Hendricks, District
Judge. (5:13-cv-03484-BHH)

Submitted:

August 28, 2015

Decided:

September 9, 2015

Before GREGORY and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jabbar Jomo Straws, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6502

Doc: 6

Filed: 09/09/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Jabbar Jomo Straws 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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012).

magistrate

judge

The magistrate

judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Straws that
failure

to

file

timely,

specific

objections

to

this

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court
order

based

upon

the

recommendation.

Although

Straws

filed

timely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, the
district court determined that the objections were nonspecific,
and thus did not conduct a de novo review of any portion of 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

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

Cir.

1985);

also

To qualify as specific, a

party’s objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendations must
“reasonably . . . alert the district court of the true ground
for the objection.”

United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616,

622 (4th Cir. 2007); see also United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d
424, 428 (4th Cir. 2008) (same).
2

Straws has waived appellate

Appeal: 15-6502

Doc: 6

Filed: 09/09/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

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
contentions

are

adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3