Jamie Goss v. Joseph McFadden

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999601455-2], updating certificate of appealability status. Originating case number: 4:14-cv-01299-MGL Copies to all parties and the district court. [999692762]. Mailed to: Jamie Goss. [15-6671]

Appeal: 15-6671

Doc: 11

Filed: 11/04/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6671

JAMIE GOSS,
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 Florence.
Mary G. Lewis, District Judge.
(4:14-cv-01299-MGL)

Submitted:

October 29, 2015

Decided:

November 4, 2015

Before GREGORY, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jamie Goss, Appellant Pro Se. Alphonso Simon, Jr., Assistant
Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney
General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6671

Doc: 11

Filed: 11/04/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Jamie

Goss

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.

§ 636(b)(1)(B)

(2012).

The

magistrate

judge

recommended that relief be denied and advised Goss 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

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

Cir.

1985);

also

Goss has waived appellate

review by failing to timely file objections.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, 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