Raymond Ford, Jr. v. Gene Johnson, No. 09-7786 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7786 RAYMOND ALEXANDER FORD, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, v. GENE M. JOHNSON, Corrections,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. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (2:09-cv-00143-RBS-JEB) Submitted: November 19, 2009 Decided: December 4, 2009 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Raymond Alexander Ford, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Craig Stallard, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Raymond A. Ford 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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). magistrate judge The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Ford 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, Ford 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). Ford 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. Although Ford contends on appeal that he timely filed in the district court a motion for extension of time to file objections, the district court docket sheet reflects no such filing. 2 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 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.
