Correy David v. Gene Johnson, No. 08-7027 (4th Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7027 CORREY SHAVANTE J. DAVID, Petitioner - Appellant, v. GENE M. JOHNSON, Corrections, Director, Virginia Department of Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:07-cv-00396-RAJ-JEB) Submitted: October 21, 2008 Decided: October 28, 2008 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Correy Shavante J. David, Appellant Pro Se. Bryden, II, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. James Robert OF VIRGINIA, Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Correy Shavante J. David seeks to appeal the district court s order petition. judge denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) The district court referred this case to a magistrate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised David 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, David 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 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). David has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice. a certificate of appealability, deny Accordingly, we deny David s application to proceed in forma pauperis, 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
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.