Filed: Jul. 28, 2020
Latest Update: Sep. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-6401 THOMAS LEE GEDDIE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (9:18-cv-02236-TLW) Submitted: July 23, 2020 Decided: July 28, 2020 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Lee
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-6401 THOMAS LEE GEDDIE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (9:18-cv-02236-TLW) Submitted: July 23, 2020 Decided: July 28, 2020 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Lee ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-6401
THOMAS LEE GEDDIE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort.
Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (9:18-cv-02236-TLW)
Submitted: July 23, 2020 Decided: July 28, 2020
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas Lee Geddie, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Thomas Lee Geddie seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his
28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2018) petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2018). The magistrate judge recommended that
relief be denied and advised Geddie 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). Geddie has waived appellate review by
failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after receiving proper
notice. 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
2