Stanford Allen, Jr. v. David Ballard, No. 09-6524 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6524 STANFORD T. ALLEN, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, v. DAVID BALLARD, Warden, Respondent Appellee, and THOMAS L. MCBRIDE, Warden, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, Senior District Judge. (1:06-cv-00597) Submitted: September 24, 2009 Decided: December 8, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stanford T. Allen, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Goldberg, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Robert David WEST VIRGINIA, Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Stanford T. Allen, Jr., appeals the district court s order granting summary judgment in favor of the Respondent 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 Allen 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, Allen failed to object specifically 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 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). Allen has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Allen s motion for 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.