Court Opinion

ID: 6327858
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-03-29 19:00:50.916308+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:31.900251
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 22-6012

JAMAAD D. THOMAS,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

WARDEN OF BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

                    Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Orangeburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:20-cv-03834-HMH)

Submitted: March 24, 2022                                         Decided: March 29, 2022

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jamaad D. Thomas, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Jamaad D. Thomas seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Thomas’ 28 U.S.C. § 2254

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of

appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”            28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment

of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74

(2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition

states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S.

134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

       We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Thomas has not made

the requisite showing. * Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

       *
         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). The magistrate judge found that one of
Thomas’ claims, that plea counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to adequately
investigate and prepare his case, was procedurally defaulted. Thomas has waived appellate
review of this claim by failing to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after
receiving proper notice.

                                              2
adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

                                                                         DISMISSED

                                          3