Henry Skeeter v. Gene Johnson, No. 09-7717 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7717 HENRY SKEETER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. GENE M. JOHNSON, Corrections, Director of the 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. (2:09-cv-00124-RAJ-TEM) Submitted: December 15, 2009 Decided: December 21, 2009 Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry Skeeter, Appellant Pro Se. Joshua Mikell Didlake, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Henry Skeeter 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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). judge The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Skeeter 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, Skeeter 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 1985); warned of the consequences of Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th noncompliance. Cir. been see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Skeeter has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Skeeter s motion to appoint counsel, 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

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.