Charles Terry v. Jonathan Frame

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 26-6170

CHARLES TERRY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

SUPERINTENDENT JONATHAN FRAME, Mount Olive Correctional Complex
and Jail,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin, District Judge. (2:24-cv -00735)

Submitted: July 23, 2026 Decided: July 28, 2026

Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Terry, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Ray Williams, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM:

Charles Terry seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his
28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be
denied and advised Terry that failure to file timely and specific objections to this
recommendation would 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. Martin v. Duffy,
858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846-47 (4th Cir. 1985);
see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154-55 (1985). Although Terry received proper
notice and filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, his objections
were not specific to the particularized legal recommendations regarding ineffective
assistance by trial counsel made by the magistrate judge, so appellate review is foreclosed.
See Martin, 858 F.3d at 245 (holding that, “to preserve for appeal an issue in a magistrate
judge’s report, a party must object to the finding or recommendation on that issue with
sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the
objection” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Accordingly, we deny Terry’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED