UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-7282
ANGELO HAM, a/k/a Angelo Bernard Ham,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN WILLIAMS,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Greenville. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (6:18-cv-00290-JMC)
Submitted: January 21, 2020 Decided: January 24, 2020
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Angelo B. Ham, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney
General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Angelo B. Ham seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28
U.S.C. § 2254 (2018) petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2018). The magistrate judge recommended that
relief be denied and advised Ham that failure to file timely, specific 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. Martin v. Duffy, 858
F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846-47 (4th Cir. 1985); see
also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154-55 (1985). Although Ham received proper notice
and filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, he has waived
appellate review of the dispositive issue, because the objections were not specific to the
magistrate judge’s recommendation that Ham’s § 2254 petition be dismissed as untimely.
See Duffy, 858 F.3d at 245 (holding that, “to preserve for appeal an issue in a magistrate
judge’s report, a party must object to the finding or recommendation on that issue with
sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the
objection”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, we 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 this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3