Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06097/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06097-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 10-6097

EBONY DASCHION BASKERVILLE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of 

Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District 

Judge. (2:09-cv-00176-RBS-JEB)

Submitted: March 30, 2010 Decided: April 9, 2010

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ebony Daschion Baskerville, Appellant Pro Se. Erin M. Kulpa, 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-6097 Doc: 10 Filed: 04/09/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Ebony Baskerville seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. 

The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). The magistrate 

judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Baskerville 

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, Baskerville 

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 (1985). 

Baskerville has waived appellate review by failing to timely 

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 

Appeal: 10-6097 Doc: 10 Filed: 04/09/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 10-6097 Doc: 10 Filed: 04/09/2010 Pg: 3 of 3