Jake Hendrix v. The State of South Carolina

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999597938-2] Originating case number: 4:14-cv-00971-JMC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999629005]. Mailed to: Hendrix. [15-6675]

Appeal: 15-6675

Doc: 9

Filed: 07/28/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6675

JAKE HENDRIX,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; DIRECTOR MICHAEL MOORE,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge.
(4:14-cv-00971-JMC)

Submitted:

July 23, 2015

Decided:

July 28, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jake Hendrix, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6675

Doc: 9

Filed: 07/28/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Jake Hendrix 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 Hendrix 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,

766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140 (1985).
to

file

specific

Hendrix has waived appellate review by failing
objections

after

receiving

proper

notice.

Accordingly, we deny Hendrix’s motion to appoint counsel, 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

2