Court Opinion

ID: 9411171
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-25 21:01:48.959914+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:05.011994
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7131      Doc: 8        Filed: 07/24/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7131

        DESHAWN LEE POWELL,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        WARDEN OF LEE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, State of South Carolina,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken.
        Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (1:21-cv-03133-DCC)

        Submitted: July 20, 2023                                            Decided: July 24, 2023

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

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        DeShawn Lee Powell, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7131       Doc: 8         Filed: 07/24/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               DeShawn Lee Powell 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 Powell 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 Powell received proper notice

        and filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, his objections were

        not specific to the particularized legal recommendations regarding procedural default made

        by the magistrate judge, so appellate review is foreclosed. 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)).

               Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We

        dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

                                                       2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7131     Doc: 8       Filed: 07/24/2023    Pg: 3 of 3

        presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

        process.

                                                                                 DISMISSED

                                                  3