Hamm v. State of South Carolina, No. 06-8062 (4th Cir. 2007)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-8062 MICHAEL E. HAMM, a/k/a Michael Eugene Hamm, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General of South Carolina; WARDEN, Ridgeland Correctional Institution, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (0:06-cv-02942-HMH) Submitted: May 31, 2007 Decided: June 5, 2007 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael E. Hamm, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael E. Hamm seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Hamm that failure to file timely, specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Hamm filed only generic, non-specific objections in which he simply restated his substantive claims. 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, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Hamm 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 also deny Hamm s motion for an evidentiary hearing. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED - 2 -
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.