Troy L. Pearson v. Cecilia Reynold
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:16-cv-01802-DCN Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: Troy L. Pearson LEE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 990 Wisacky Highway Bishopville, SC 29010-2021. [16-7464]
Pg: 1 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
TROY L. PEARSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
David C. Norton, District Judge. (4:16-cv-01802-DCN)
Submitted: May 23, 2017
Before KEENAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Troy L. Pearson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Decided: June 8, 2017
Pg: 2 of 2
Troy L. Pearson seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(2012) petition. The magistrate judge recommended dismissing the petition and advised
Pearson 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). Pearson
waived appellate review by failing to file 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
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?