Yesenia Ramirez v. Angela Rawski

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 0:15-cv-04631-MGL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999990633]. Mailed to: Yesenia Ramirez. [16-7147]

Appeal: 16-7147

Doc: 5

Filed: 12/20/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7147

YESENIA CORTEZ RAMIREZ,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
WARDEN ANGELA RAWSKI,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill.
Mary G. Lewis, District Judge.
(0:15-cv-04631-MGL)

Submitted:

December 15, 2016

Decided:

December 20, 2016

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Yesenia Cortez Ramirez, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Caroline M. Scrantom, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7147

Doc: 5

Filed: 12/20/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Yesenia Cortez Ramirez seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on her 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 Ramirez that
failure

to

file

timely,

specific

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).

Ramirez

has

waived

appellate

review of her claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and
actual innocence by failing to file specific objections after
receiving proper notice.

To the extent Ramirez filed specific

objections to the magistrate judge’s statement that the court
would not consider filings Ramirez had not signed, we conclude
that Ramirez fails to make “a substantial showing of the denial
of a constitutional right.”

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012); see

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000).

2

Appeal: 16-7147

Doc: 5

Accordingly,

Filed: 12/20/2016

we

dismiss the appeal.
facts

and

materials

legal
before

deny

a

Pg: 3 of 3

certificate

of

appealability

and

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
DISMISSED

3