Court Opinion

ID: 990622
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:24:13.892183+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:25:46.760441
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

FRANKIE SMITH,
Petitioner-Appellant,

v.                                                                    No. 96-6614

EUGENE NUTH, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Benson E. Legg, District Judge.
(CA-94-2087-L)

Submitted: October 3, 1996

Decided: October 16, 1996

Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Frankie Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Mary-
land, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his
petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), as amended by
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No.
104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. The case was referred to a magistrate judge
for a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
(1994). The magistrate judge filed a recommendation that the petition
be dismissed, and Appellant filed objections.

The district court is required to "make a de novo determination of
those portions of the [magistrate's] proposed findings or recommen-
dations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1)(C). Spe-
cific objections are necessary in order to focus the court's attention
on disputed issues. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147-48 (1985).
Because general objections do not direct the court's attention to any
specific portions of the report, general objections to a magistrate
judge's report are tantamount to a failure to object. Howard v. Secre-
tary of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991);
see also Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982) (de novo
review not required where objections are general and conclusory). A
failure to object waives appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d
841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985).

Appellant specifically objected to the magistrate judge's recom-
mendation regarding his claims of insufficiency of the evidence sup-
porting his convictions. As to the remainder of his claims, Appellant
stated that he generally objected, without addressing any specific fac-
tual or legal findings. These objections waived appellate review as to
all claims except his assertions of insufficient evidence.

Concerning the claims of insufficient evidence, we have reviewed
the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommenda-
tion of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal; to the extent that
a certificate of appealability is required, we deny such a certificate.
We dismiss the insufficient evidence claims on the reasoning of the
district court. Smith v. Nuth, No. CA-94-2087-L (D. Md. Mar. 28,

                    2
1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the dis-
trict court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

                    3