Court Opinion

ID: 1025328
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 06:48:20.900429+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:27:49.456723
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 08-6231

ALFONSO WARE, JR.,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

WARDEN, BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

                Respondent - Appellee,

          and

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

                Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort.    Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (9:07-cv-03799-PMD)

Submitted:   March 27, 2008                 Decided:   April 4, 2008

Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alfonso Ware, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

           Alfonso Ware, Jr., 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 Ware 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,   Ware    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).     Ware has waived appellate review by failing to

timely file specific objections 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

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                  DISMISSED

                                  - 2 -