Bryan Byrd v. Michael Stephon

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7713

BRYAN BYRD,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL STEPHON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:18-cv-03256-HMH)

Submitted: May 20, 2020 Decided: May 26, 2020

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bryan Byrd, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM:

Bryan Byrd seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 (2018) petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2018). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be
denied and advised Byrd that failure to file timely, specific objections to this
recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the
recommendation. Although Byrd filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s
recommendation, the district court determined that the objections were nonspecific,
unrelated to the magistrate judge’s dispositive findings, and merely restated Byrd’s claims.
After conducting its review, the court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and
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). To qualify as specific, a party’s
objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendations must “reasonably . . . alert the district
court of the true ground for the objection.” United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 622
(4th Cir. 2007); see also United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 428 (4th Cir. 2008) (same).
Byrd has waived appellate review by failing to file specific objections to the magistrate
judge’s recommendation after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate
of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

3

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