Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06502/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06502-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6502

JABBAR JOMO STRAWS, a/k/a Jabbar J. Straws,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

MR. ROBERT M. STEVENSON, III, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Bruce H. Hendricks, District 

Judge. (5:13-cv-03484-BHH)

Submitted: August 28, 2015 Decided: September 9, 2015

Before GREGORY and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jabbar Jomo Straws, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6502 Doc: 6 Filed: 09/09/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Jabbar Jomo Straws 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 Straws that 

failure to file timely, specific objections to this 

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court 

order based upon the recommendation. Although Straws filed 

timely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, the 

district court determined that the objections were nonspecific, 

and thus did not conduct a de novo review of any portion of 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 qualify as specific, a 

party’s objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendations must 

“reasonably . . . alert the district court of the true ground 

for the objection.” United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 

622 (4th Cir. 2007); see also United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 

424, 428 (4th Cir. 2008) (same). Straws has waived appellate 

Appeal: 15-6502 Doc: 6 Filed: 09/09/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

review by failing to file specific 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 decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-6502 Doc: 6 Filed: 09/09/2015 Pg: 3 of 3