Steve Chandler v. Sandy Barnett, No. 09-6322 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6322 STEVE CHANDLER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. SANDY BARNETT, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (8:08-cv-00930-HMH) Submitted: June 18, 2009 Decided: June 24, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steve Chandler, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Creighton Waters, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Steve denying his Chandler 28 U.S.C. appeals § 2254 the (2006) district court s petition. The order 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 Chandler 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, Chandler 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 noncompliance. Cir. 1985); been warned of the consequences of Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Chandler 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.