United States of America v. CHRISTOPHER JERMAINE TAYLOR, a/k/a Phoenix, a/k/a C-Murda

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7455

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHRISTOPHER JERMAINE TAYLOR, a/k/a Phoenix, a/k/a C-Murda,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (3:15-cr-00009-1, 3:16-cv-05173)

Submitted: May 21, 2020 Decided: May 26, 2020

Before AGEE and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Jermaine Taylor, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Jermaine Taylor seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief
on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) motion and denying his motion for reconsideration. 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 Taylor that
failure to file timely, specific 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. 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 Taylor received proper notice
and filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, he has waived
appellate review because the objections were not specific to the particularized legal
recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 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 a certificate of appealability, deny Taylor’s motion to
place this appeal in abeyance, 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