Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07144/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07144-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mykel Johnson
Appellant
Randolph Williams
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7144

MYKEL JOHNSON,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

RANDOLPH WILLIAMS, Warden of Lieber,

 Respondent - Appellee.

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

Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:19-cv-01576-HMH)

Submitted: February 27, 2020 Decided: March 10, 2020

Before NIEMEYER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mykel Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7144 Doc: 11 Filed: 03/10/2020 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Mykel Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2018) 

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2018). A certificate of appealability will 

not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(2) (2018). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 

473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district

court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the 

dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of 

the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

The district court determined that Johnson did not file specific objections to the 

magistrate judge’s report and 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 Johnson received proper notice and filed timely objections to the magistrate 

judge’s recommendation, he has waived appellate review of the magistrate judge’s 

recommendation that his due process and equal protection claims not be converted to a 42 

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7144 Doc: 11 Filed: 03/10/2020 Pg: 2 of 3
3

U.S.C. § 1983 action because the objections were not specific to the particularized legal 

recommendations made by the magistrate judge on this issue. See Martin, 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)). 

Johnson filed sufficiently specific objections related to exhaustion of his state 

remedies to preserve appellate review. However, we have independently reviewed the 

record and conclude that Johnson has not made the requisite showing to grant a certificate 

of appealability as to the exhaustion issue. 

Accordingly, we deny Johnson’s motion for a certificate of appealability as to all 

claims 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

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7144 Doc: 11 Filed: 03/10/2020 Pg: 3 of 3