Frank Boston v. Warden, Lee Correctional Insti, No. 08-6209 (4th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6209 FRANK BOSTON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN, LEE CORRECTIONAL DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, INSTITUTION; SOUTH CAROLINA Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (9:07-cv-01861-PMD) Submitted: June 26, 2008 Decided: July 1, 2008 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frank Boston, Appellant Pro Se. Erin Mary Farrell, John Eric Kaufmann, MCKAY, CAUTHEN, SETTANA & STUBLEY, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Frank Boston, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. Boston s case was referred 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 Boston 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, Boston failed to timely object to the magistrate judge s recommendation. The timely filing of 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 that failure to object will waive appellate review. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Wright v. See generally Boston has waived appellate review by failing to file timely objections after receiving proper notice. We accordingly deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. facts and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the 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.
