Yesenia Ramirez v. Angela Rawski
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 0:15-cv-04631-MGL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: Yesenia Ramirez. [16-7147]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
YESENIA CORTEZ RAMIREZ,
Petitioner – Appellant,
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.
December 15, 2016
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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Yesenia Cortez Ramirez seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012).
judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Ramirez that
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.
Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845 46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas
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).
dismiss the appeal.
Pg: 3 of 3
We dispense with oral argument because the
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?