Troy Mobley, Jr. v. Leroy Cartledge, No. 08-8142 (4th Cir. 2009)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8142 TROY EUGENE MOBLEY, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, v. LEROY CARTLEDGE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (3:07-cv-01593-GRA) Submitted: January 13, 2009 Before WILLIAMS, Judges. Chief Judge, Decided: and TRAXLER January 20, 2009 and KING, Circuit Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Troy Eugene Mobley, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Troy Eugene Mobley, Jr. seeks to appeal the district court s order petition. judge denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) The district court referred this case to a magistrate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Mobley that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based Mobley upon failed the recommendation. to object to Despite warning, magistrate the this judge s recommendation. The magistrate timely judge s filing of recommendation specific is objections necessary to to a preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties noncompliance. have been warned of the consequences of Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Mobley has waived appellate review by failing to timely 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 2 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3

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.