UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-6715
WILLIE E. JOHNSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
LEROY CARTLEDGE, Acting Warden of McCormick Correctional
Institution,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (6:07-cv-01505-PMD)
Submitted: September 16, 2008 Decided: September 22, 2008
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Willie E. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Willie E. Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. 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 Johnson 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, Johnson 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 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). Johnson has waived appellate review by failing to
timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
underlying appeal.
Johnson also appeals the district court’s order denying
his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. We find no abuse of the district
court’s discretion in its denial of Johnson’s Rule 59(e) motion,
and therefore affirm. See Temkin v. Frederick County Comm’rs, 945
F.2d 716, 724 (4th Cir. 1991).
2
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 IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
3