Robert Shirley v. Collie Rushton, No. 08-8213 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8213 ROBERT CHRISTOPHER SHIRLEY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. COLLIE RUSHTON, Warden of McCormick Correctional Institute, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (0:07-cv-02996-HFF) Submitted: August 20, 2009 Before WILKINSON and Senior Circuit Judge. MICHAEL, Decided: August 24, 2009 Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Christopher Shirley, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Samuel Creighton Waters, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robert Christopher Shirley seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Shirley that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based Shirley upon the to failed recommendation. object to Despite warning, magistrate the this judge s recommendation. The magistrate timely judge s filing of specific recommendation is objections necessary to to a preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have noncompliance. Cir. 1985); Shirley has been warned of the consequences of Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th see also waived Thomas v. appellate Arn, 474 review by objections after receiving proper notice. U.S. 140 failing (1985). to file 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 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.
