Court Opinion

ID: 9396898
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-23 21:00:49.966833+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:19.578426
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7088      Doc: 14         Filed: 05/22/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7088

        JUSTIN HILLERBY,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        KENNETH NELSON, Warden,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Greenville. Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (6:21-cv-03450-DCC)

        Submitted: May 18, 2023                                           Decided: May 22, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        William Glenn Yarborough, III, WILLIAM G. YARBOROUGH III, ATTORNEY AT
        LAW, LLC, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Melody Jane Brown, Senior
        Assistant Attorney General, Julianna Battenfield, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for
        Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7088         Doc: 14        Filed: 05/22/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

                  Justin Hillerby seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28

        U.S.C. § 2254 petition. 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 relief be denied and

        advised Hillerby 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). Although Hillerby received proper

        notice and filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, he has waived

        appellate review because the objections were not specific to the particularized legal

        recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 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)). Specifically, Hillerby failed to substantively challenge the magistrate judge’s

        determination that Hillerby was not entitled to § 2254 relief based on the state appeals

        court’s application of relevant federal law in affirming the denial of state postconviction

        relief.

                                                       2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7088     Doc: 14        Filed: 05/22/2023   Pg: 3 of 3

              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

                                                  3