Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Willie David Johnson, Petitioner-appellant, v. Kenneth D. Mckellar, Warden, State of South Carolina, Travismedlock, Attorney General of the State of Southcarolina, Respondents-appellees
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. - 840 F.2d 10Unpublished Disposition
Submitted Nov. 27, 1987.Decided Feb. 16, 1988
Willie David Johnson, appellant pro se.
Frank Louis Valenta, Jr., Office of Attorney General of South Carolina, for appellee.
Before JAMES DICKSON PHILLIPS, WILKINSON, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Willie D. Johnson, a South Carolina inmate, seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing this 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 action. Appellant's action was referred to a magistrate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate recommended that relief be denied and advised appellant that the failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Although Johnson filed objections, they were not filed within the time period prescribed by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(b)(1) and the magistrate's report. The district court declined to conduct de novo review of these untimely objections.
This Court has held that the timely filing of objections to a magistrate's recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation where the parties have been warned that failure to timely object will waive appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir.1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1208 (1984). See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review by failing to file timely objections after receiving proper notice. We accordingly deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the dispositive issues recently have been decided authoritatively.
DISMISSED.