UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7303
WILLIE S. MERRIWEATHER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
GEORGE HAGIN, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (2:08-cv-03236-PMD)
Submitted: September 10, 2009 Decided: September 16, 2009
Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Willie S. Merriweather, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Samuel Creighton Waters,
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Willie S. Merriweather 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
Merriweather that failure to file timely and specific objections
to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a
district court order based upon the recommendation. Although
Merriweather filed timely objections, his objections were not
specific to the exhaustion issue that formed the basis for the
magistrate judge’s recommendation, and later for the district
court’s order of dismissal.
The 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). “[A] party . . . waives a
right to appellate review of particular issues by failing to
file timely objections specifically directed to those issues.”
United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621 (4th Cir. 2007).
Therefore, Merriweather has waived appellate review to the
dispositive issue by failing to file specific objections after
2
receiving proper notice. 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3