Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07452/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07452-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Leroy Cartledge
Appellee
Sherman Dewalt
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7452

SHERMAN DEWALT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN LEROY CARTLEDGE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Aiken. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. 

(1:14-cv-02335-MGL)

Submitted: March 16, 2016 Decided: April 8, 2016

Before DUNCAN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sherman Dewalt, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, Alphonso Simon, Jr., Assistant 

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7452 Doc: 9 Filed: 04/08/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Sherman Dewalt 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 Dewalt 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. Wright v. 

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Moreover, an appellant may 

not “preserve arguments merely by incorporating them by 

reference in a few sentences in his brief.” McCarver v. Lee, 

221 F.3d 583, 588 n.1 (4th Cir. 2000). Dewalt has waived 

appellate review by failing to specifically object to the 

magistrate judge’s findings on the issues he asserts on appeal

after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Appeal: 15-7452 Doc: 9 Filed: 04/08/2016 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

Appeal: 15-7452 Doc: 9 Filed: 04/08/2016 Pg: 3 of 3