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)
15-6256•Sherman Graham v. JOSEPH MCFADDEN, Warden, Lieber Correctional Institution
15-6256Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMay 22, 2015
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6256
SHERMAN GRAHAM,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JOSEPH MCFADDEN, Warden, Lieber Correctional Institution,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(1:14-cv—01680-TMC)
Submitted: May 19, 2015 Decided: May 22, 2015
Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sherman Graham, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Kaycie Smith Timmons, Assistant
Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Sherman Graham seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The
district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge
recommended that relief be denied and advised Graham that
failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could
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. Wright v.
Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Graham has waived appellate
review by failing to timely file 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
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.