Eric Youmous v. Warden, Lieber Correctional Institution

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7107
ERIC YOUMOUS,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
WARDEN, LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent – Appellee,
and
JON OZMINT; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
Respondents.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (4:08-cv-02504-GRA)
Submitted: October 20, 2009 Decided: October 26, 2009
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and
HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eric Youmous, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

PER CURIAM:
Eric Youmous appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition as untimely.
The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). The magistrate
judge recommended granting Respondent’s motion for summary
judgment and dismissing the petition. The magistrate judge
further advised Youmous 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, Youmous failed to object to the magistrate judge’s
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).
Youmous has waived appellate review by failing to file
objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny
Youmous’ motion for 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

-- 2 of 3 --

3
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --