Joseph Dickerson, a/k/a Joseph Lee Dickerson, a/k/a Joseph L. Dickerson v. Warden Lieber Correctional Institution

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7958
JOSEPH DICKERSON, a/k/a Joseph Lee Dickerson, a/k/a Joseph
L. Dickerson,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(8:12-cv-02606-RBH)
Submitted: April 17, 2014 Decided: April 21, 2014
Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph Dickerson, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown,
Assistant Attorney General, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Joseph Dickerson seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition,
and its subsequent order denying Dickerson’s post-judgment
motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b). 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 Dickerson that
failure to file timely 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).
Dickerson has waived appellate review by failing to timely file
objections after receiving proper notice.*
* The district court granted Dickerson one thirty-day
extension of time in which to file his objections, and did not
abuse its discretion in denying a second extension. See
Thompson v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 76 F.3d 530, 534 (4th
Cir. 1996) (providing standard of review for denial of filing
extension).

-- 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 --