Filed: Nov. 15, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7222 MARCELLUS PIERCE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-99-4136-2-19AJ) Submitted: November 9, 2000 Decided: November 15, 2000 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7222 MARCELLUS PIERCE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-99-4136-2-19AJ) Submitted: November 9, 2000 Decided: November 15, 2000 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-7222
MARCELLUS PIERCE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CHARLES M. CONDON,
Attorney General of the State of South
Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.
(CA-99-4136-2-19AJ)
Submitted: November 9, 2000 Decided: November 15, 2000
Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marcellus Pierce, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Alan Jacobs, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Marcellus Pierce appeals the district court’s order denying
his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.
2000). Pierce’s case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recom-
mended that relief be denied and advised Pierce that the failure to
file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate
review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.
Despite this warning, Pierce failed to object to the magistrate
judge’s recommendation.
The timely filing of 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
that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v.
Collins,
766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v.
Arn,
474 U.S. 140 (1985). Pierce has waived appellate review by
failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. We
accordingly 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 the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2