Yesenia Cortez Ramirez v. Warden Angela Rawski

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7147
YESENIA CORTEZ RAMIREZ,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
WARDEN ANGELA RAWSKI,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge.
(0:15-cv-04631-MGL)
Submitted: December 15, 2016 Decided: December 20, 2016
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Yesenia Cortez Ramirez, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Caroline M. Scrantom, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Yesenia Cortez Ramirez seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on her 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 Ramirez 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. Wright v.
Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845 46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Ramirez has waived appellate
review of her claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and
actual innocence by failing to file specific objections after
receiving proper notice. To the extent Ramirez filed specific
objections to the magistrate judge’s statement that the court
would not consider filings Ramirez had not signed, we conclude
that Ramirez fails to make “a substantial showing of the denial
of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012); see
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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 --