UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6407
DARYL B. STEWART,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JON OZMINT, Director SCDC; WARDEN,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (9:09-cv-00136-HMH)
Submitted: June 24, 2010 Decided: July 1, 2010
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Daryl B. Stewart, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Daryl B. Stewart 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.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2010).
The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and
advised Stewart 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).
Stewart has waived appellate review by failing to file
objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny
a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal in part.
We also affirm the district court’s order denying Stewart’s
request for more time to file objections. ∗
∗
Stewart did not request an extension until after judgment
was entered against him and almost a month after the magistrate
judge’s report.
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