UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6673
DANNY RAY STEPHENS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
A. J. PADULA, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (0:08-cv-00283-PMD)
Submitted: August 26, 2009 Decided: September 3, 2009
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit
Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Danny Ray Stephens, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown,
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Danny Ray Stephens, a South Carolina prisoner, seeks
to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28
U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The district court referred this
case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)
(2006). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied
and advised Stephens that failure to timely file specific
objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review
of a district court order based upon the recommendation.
Despite this warning, Stephens filed only a general objection 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. See United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616,
621-22 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 551 U.S. 1157 (2007); see also
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d
841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). Stephens has waived appellate
review by failing to file specific objections after receiving
proper notice. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the
appeal.
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
3