The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
07-6070•Jerome Long v. JON OZMINT, Director
07-6070Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJun 27, 2007
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6070
JEROME LONG,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
JON OZMINT, Director; HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney
General; WARDEN, Perry Correctional
Institution,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(6:06-cv-00449-HFF)
Submitted: June 21, 2007 Decided: June 27, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jerome Long, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Jerome Long 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 Long that failure to file timely
objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of
a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this
warning, Long failed to object to the grounds upon which the
magistrate judge recommended denying relief.
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). Long has waived appellate review by failing to
timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice.
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 before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.