Court Opinion

ID: 1000287
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:37:55.285458+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:38:12.411331
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

TEXAS THOMAS DAVIS, JR.,
Petitioner-Appellant,

v.                                                                No. 99-6791

MICHAEL E. BUMGARNER,
Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge.
(CA-98-564-5-BR2)

Submitted: November 4, 1999

Decided: November 15, 1999

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Herscal Peele Williams, Jr., TWIFORD, MORRISON, O'NEAL,
VINCENT & WILLIAMS, L.L.P., Elizabeth City, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTOR-
NEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Texas Thomas Davis, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order
dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A.§ 2254 (West 1994 &
Supp. 1999). Davis's case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recom-
mended that relief be denied and advised Davis that failure to file
timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate
review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. On
appeal, Davis seeks to raise several issues not addressed in his objec-
tions to the magistrate judge's report.

Specific objections are necessary in order to focus the court's atten-
tion on disputed issues. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 148 (1985).
Therefore, a party's objection must direct the court's attention to spe-
cific portions of the record. See Howard v. Secretary of Health &
Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991). Davis's failure to
raise these claims in his objections waived appellate review. See
Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985).

Construing Davis's objections liberally, however, we will briefly
address two arguments, alluded to in Davis's objections, not
addressed by the district court, and raised again by Davis on appeal.
First, the limitations period for § 2254 petitions in 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 2244(d) (West Supp. 1999) does not violate the Suspension Clause
of the Constitution. See Mueller v. Angelone, 181 F.3d 557, 572-73
(4th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 1999 WL 720053 (U.S.
Sept. 16, 1999) (No. 99-6143, 99A222). Second, Davis's original,
timely § 2254 petition was dismissed without prejudice for failure to
particularize claims. After this petition was dismissed, however, the
limitation period was not tolled. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244 (d)(2) (West
Supp. 1999).

                    2
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

                    3