Court Opinion

ID: 9946001
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-28 21:01:06.200293+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:21.941714
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7289      Doc: 7        Filed: 02/27/2024     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-7289

        ROBERT DAVIS SMITH, JR., a/k/a Robert David Smith, Jr.,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        WARDEN, TYGER RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Anderson. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (8:23-cv-04820-MGL)

        Submitted: February 22, 2024                                 Decided: February 27, 2024

        Before NIEMEYER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Robert Davis Smith, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-7289         Doc: 7      Filed: 02/27/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Robert Davis Smith, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28

        U.S.C. § 2254 petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies. The district

        court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The

        magistrate judge recommended that the petition be dismissed and advised 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. 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). Smith has forfeited appellate review by

        failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation 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 before this court and argument would not aid the

        decisional process.

                                                                                       DISMISSED

                                                     2