Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

222 F. App'x 296

Lesane v. Padula

U.S. Courts of Appeals

Decided March 29, 2007

This page is marked noindex.

U.S. Courts of Appeals · decided 2007-03-29

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 636

Relies on Thomas v. Arn · Wright v. Collins · United States v. Midgette

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion · Decided 2007-03-29

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Michael B. Lesane, a South Carolina prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Lesane that failure to timely file specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Lesane failed to file specific objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

¶2 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. See United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 622-23 (4th Cir.2007); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir.1985). Lesane has waived appellate review by failing to file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

¶3 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.

¶4 DISMISSED.

/222/fappx/296 · .json · Public domain