Daniel Eugene Sherman v. MICHAEL MCCALL, Warden

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6777
DANIEL EUGENE SHERMAN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL MCCALL, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.,
District Judge. (5:10-cv-02571-JFA)
Submitted: August 22, 2012 Decided: August 27, 2012
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Daniel Eugene Sherman, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Brendan McDonald, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Daniel Eugene Sherman seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)
petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate
judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp.
2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied
and advised Sherman that failure to file timely objections to
this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district
court order based upon the recommendation. The court granted
Sherman one extension of time to file objections, but no
objections were forthcoming.
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).
Sherman has waived appellate review by failing to file
objections after receiving proper notice. Further, we find no
merit in Sherman’s motion asking this court to excuse his
failure to object to the magistrate judge’s report.
Accordingly, we deny that motion and a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal.

-- 2 of 3 --

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.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --