Jabbar Jomo Straws, a/k/a Jabbar J. Straws v. MR. ROBERT M. STEVENSON, III, Warden

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6502
JABBAR JOMO STRAWS, a/k/a Jabbar J. Straws,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
MR. ROBERT M. STEVENSON, III, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Bruce H. Hendricks, District
Judge. (5:13-cv-03484-BHH)
Submitted: August 28, 2015 Decided: September 9, 2015
Before GREGORY and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jabbar Jomo Straws, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Jabbar Jomo Straws 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 Straws that
failure to file timely, specific objections to this
recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court
order based upon the recommendation. Although Straws filed
timely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, the
district court determined that the objections were nonspecific,
and thus did not conduct a de novo review of any portion of 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). 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). Straws has waived appellate

-- 2 of 3 --

3
review by failing to file specific 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

-- 3 of 3 --