Carter v. Randolph County Jail, No. 06-6477 (4th Cir. 2006)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6477 MARY CARTER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RANDOLPH COUNTY JAIL, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District District of North Carolina, at Durham. District Judge. (1:05-cv-00268-JAB) Court for the Middle James A. Beaty, Jr., Submitted: June 22, 2006 Decided: July 3, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary Carter, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Mary Carter seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Carter that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Carter failed to object to the magistrate judge s 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). Carter has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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 - 2 -

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.