Court Opinion

ID: 9365151
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-21 21:00:49.458862+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:43.443338
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6960      Doc: 12         Filed: 01/20/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                                No. 22-6960

        JOHN FOSTER NORRIS,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        WARDEN, EVANS CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

                            Respondent - Appellee,

                     and

        SOUTH CAROLINA, STATE OF; DEPARTMENT OF CORR.

                            Respondents.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
        Hill. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (0:22-cv-00736-HMH)

        Submitted: January 17, 2023                                       Decided: January 20, 2023

        Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        John Foster Norris, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6960      Doc: 12          Filed: 01/20/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               John Foster Norris 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 Norris 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 Norris 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)). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

        appealability and dismiss the appeal.

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6960         Doc: 12    Filed: 01/20/2023   Pg: 3 of 3

              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