Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Linwood Scott v. Allyn R. Sielaff, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, 87-6580 (1988)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 87-6580 Visitors: 64
Filed: Jan. 26, 1988
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 838 F.2d 467 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Linwood SCOTT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Allyn R. SIELAFF, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee. No. 87-6580. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted Nov. 5, 19
More

838 F.2d 467
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Linwood SCOTT, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Allyn R. SIELAFF, Director, Virginia Department of
Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 87-6580.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 5, 1987.
Decided Jan. 26, 1988.

Linwood Scott, appellant pro se.

Richard Bain Smith, Office of the Attorney General, for appellee.

E.D.Va.

DISMISSED.

Before DONALD RUSSELL, PHILLIPS, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Linwood Scott, a Virginia inmate, seeks to appeal from the district court's dismissal of his pro se application for habeas corpus relief.

2

Scott's petition was referred to a magistrate for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). On June 23, 1987, the magistrate filed her report recommending that the petition be denied and dismissed. Scott was sent a copy of the magistrate's recommendation along with notification that failure to object to the magistrate's report within ten (10) days would result in waiver of his right to appeal the district court's judgment. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(b)(1)(C). Scott failed to file objections. On July 27, 1987, the district court adopted the recommendation of the magistrate and dismissed the petition. Scott appealed.

3

The failure to timely object to a magistrate's report and recommendation waives appellate review of the substance of that report if notification was given as to the need to timely object. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir.1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1208 (1984). See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Scott was given notification but, nevertheless, he failed to timely object. Therefore, he has waived appellate review.

4

Because the dispositive issues have been decided authoritatively, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal, dispense with oral argument, and dismiss the appeal.

5

DISMISSED.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer