Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07282/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07282-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 19-7282

ANGELO HAM, a/k/a Angelo Bernard Ham,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN WILLIAMS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Greenville. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (6:18-cv-00290-JMC)

Submitted: January 21, 2020 Decided: January 24, 2020

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Angelo B. Ham, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney 

General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 

Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7282 Doc: 6 Filed: 01/24/2020 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Angelo B. Ham seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 (2018) petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2018). The magistrate judge recommended that 

relief be denied and advised Ham 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. Martin v. Duffy, 858 

F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846-47 (4th Cir. 1985); see 

also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154-55 (1985). Although Ham received proper notice 

and filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, he has waived 

appellate review of the dispositive issue, because the objections were not specific to the 

magistrate judge’s recommendation that Ham’s § 2254 petition be dismissed as untimely. 

See Duffy, 858 F.3d at 245 (holding that, “to preserve for appeal an issue in a magistrate 

judge’s report, a party must object to the finding or recommendation on that issue with 

sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the 

objection”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of 

appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7282 Doc: 6 Filed: 01/24/2020 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7282 Doc: 6 Filed: 01/24/2020 Pg: 3 of 3