Case ID: f-appx_254/html/0273-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jerry Glenn JOSHUA, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.
    No. 07-1616.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Nov. 15, 2007.
    Decided: Nov. 20, 2007.
    Jerry Glenn Joshua, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Bidwell Theisen, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Jerry Glenn Joshua seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Joshua that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Joshua failed to object to the magistrate judge’s 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, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Since Joshua fails to provide sworn evidence supporting his contention that he did not receive the report and recommendation, he has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific objections. Further, the record reflects that the petition was properly dismissed. 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.