Tron Anderson v. Warden Bodison, No. 09-6790 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6790 TRON ANDERSON, Petitioner Appellant, v. WARDEN MCKITHER BODISON, Respondent Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (8:08-cv-02260-SB) Submitted: July 23, 2009 Decided: July 30, 2009 Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tron Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. James Anthony Mabry, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tron Anderson 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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). judge The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Anderson 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, Anderson failed to object 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 1985); warned of the consequences of Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th noncompliance. Cir. been see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Anderson 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 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.