Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-01616/USCOURTS-ca4-07-01616-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gene M. Johnson
Appellee
Jerry Glenn Joshua
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-1616

JERRY GLENN JOSHUA,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

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. (2:06-cv-00079-RBS)

Submitted: November 15, 2007 Decided: November 20, 2007

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerry Glenn Joshua, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Bidwell Theisen,

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

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-1616 Doc: 12 Filed: 11/20/2007 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

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 (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

Appeal: 07-1616 Doc: 12 Filed: 11/20/2007 Pg: 2 of 2