Jabbar Straws v. Robert Stevenson, III

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6502

JABBAR JOMO STRAWS, a/k/a Jabbar J. Straws,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

MR. ROBERT M. STEVENSON, III, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Bruce H. Hendricks, District
Judge. (5:13-cv-03484-BHH)

Submitted: August 28, 2015 Decided: September 9, 2015

Before GREGORY and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jabbar Jomo Straws, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Jabbar Jomo Straws seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.

The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate

judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Straws that

failure to file timely, specific objections to this

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court

order based upon the recommendation. Although Straws filed

timely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, the

district court determined that the objections were nonspecific,

and thus did not conduct a de novo review of any portion of 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). To qualify as specific, a

party’s objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendations must

“reasonably . . . alert the district court of the true ground

for the objection.” United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616,

622 (4th Cir. 2007); see also United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d

424, 428 (4th Cir. 2008) (same). Straws has waived appellate

2
review by failing to file specific objections after 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

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3