Robert Singletary v. MICHAEL STEPHON, Warden; BROAD RIVER CORRECTION INST

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6070

ROBERT SINGLETARY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL STEPHON, Warden; BROAD RIVER CORRECTION INST,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort.
Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (9:19-cv-00227-MGL)

Submitted: June 16, 2020 Decided: June 19, 2020

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Singletary, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Singletary 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 Singletary 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 Singletary received proper
notice and filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, he has waived
appellate review because the timely 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 and dismiss the appeal. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED