Kenneth Ray v. Henry McMaster, No. 09-6054 (4th Cir. 2009)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6054 KENNETH RAY, a/k/a Kenneth J. Ray, a/k/a Kenneth Feochie Ray, a/k/a Kenneth F. Ray, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HENRY MCMASTER; INSTITUTION, WARDEN, BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (8:08-cv-03837-HMH) Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: May 28, 2009 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth Ray, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kenneth Ray 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 Ray that failure to file timely and specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. file specific Despite this warning, Ray failed to objections to the magistrate 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 have noncompliance. been warned of the consequences Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). has waived of appellate review by failing objections after receiving proper notice. to file Ray specific Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.