Sherman Graham v. Joseph McFadden, No. 15-6256 (4th Cir. 2015)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6256 SHERMAN GRAHAM, Petitioner - Appellant, v. JOSEPH MCFADDEN, Warden, Lieber Correctional Institution, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (1:14-cv—01680-TMC) Submitted: May 19, 2015 Decided: May 22, 2015 Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sherman Graham, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Kaycie Smith Timmons, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Sherman Graham seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. recommended § 636(b)(1)(B) that relief be (2012). denied The and magistrate advised judge Graham that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, see 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Graham has waived appellate review objections proper by failing notice. to timely file Accordingly, we deny a after receiving certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 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.