James Young v. State of South Carolina, No. 09-7082 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7082 JAMES YOUNG, Petitioner - Appellant, v. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; ROBERT STEVENSON, BRCI Warden, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior District Judge. (3:08-cv-01053-PMD) Submitted: January 19, 2010 Decided: January 26, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Young, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James Young 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 judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Young that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review recommendation. of a district court order based upon the Despite this warning, Young 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). Young 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.