UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6963
SAMMY JUNIOR MORGAN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
THEODIS BECK, Secretary of North Carolina
Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,
District Judge. (CA-03-849)
Submitted: September 16, 2004 Decided: September 23, 2004
Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sammy Junior Morgan, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Sammy Junior Morgan seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).
The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge
recommended that relief be denied and advised Morgan that failure
to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive
appellate review of a district court order based upon the
recommendation. Despite this warning, Morgan failed to object to
the magistrate judge’s 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 that failure to object will waive appellate review. See
Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Morgan has waived appellate
review by failing to file objections after receiving proper
notice.* Accordingly, we deny Morgan’s motion to proceed in forma
*
In his informal brief Morgan seeks to raise, for the first
time, a claim pursuant to the recent Supreme Court case of Blakely
v. Washington, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004). Even if properly before this
court for consideration, Blakely would offer Morgan no relief,
because, inter alia, the Supreme Court has not made its ruling in
Blakely retroactive to cases on collateral review. See In re Dean,
375 F.3d 1287, 1290 (11th Cir. 2004); see also United States v.
Sanders, 247 F.3d 139, 151 (4th Cir. 2001) (holding that the rule
announced in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), the
precursor to Blakely, is not retroactively applicable to cases on
(continued...)
- 2 -
pauperis, 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
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
*
(...continued)
collateral review).
- 3 -