Filed: Mar. 08, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7047 JAMES HARDIN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. LEROY CARTLEDGE, Acting Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior District Judge. (3:08-cv-02334-PMD) Submitted: February 28, 2011 Decided: March 8, 2011 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7047 JAMES HARDIN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. LEROY CARTLEDGE, Acting Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior District Judge. (3:08-cv-02334-PMD) Submitted: February 28, 2011 Decided: March 8, 2011 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7047
JAMES HARDIN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
LEROY CARTLEDGE, Acting Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (3:08-cv-02334-PMD)
Submitted: February 28, 2011 Decided: March 8, 2011
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Hardin, Appellant Pro Se. James Anthony Mabry, Assistant
Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney
General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Hardin seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition,
and its subsequent order denying his motion to vacate judgment
and for leave to file objections. The district court referred
this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2010). The magistrate judge
recommended that relief be denied and advised Hardin 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. Wright v. Collins,
766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th
Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140 (1985). Hardin
has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after
receiving proper notice and receiving an extension of time to
file objections. 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
2
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3