Clifton Singletary v. State of South Carolina, No. 10-6043 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6043 CLIFTON SINGLETARY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. STATE OF SOUTH INSTITUTION, CAROLINA; WARDEN OF LEE CORRECTIONAL Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (0:09-cv-00401-MBS) Submitted: November 18, 2010 Before SHEDD and Circuit Judge. AGEE, Circuit Decided: Judges, and November 29, 2010 HAMILTON, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clifton Singletary, Assistant Attorney Assistant Attorney Appellees. Appellant Pro Se. James Anthony Mabry, General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Clifton court s order petition. Singletary denying relief seeks on to his appeal the U.S.C. § 2254 28 district (2006) The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2010). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Singletary that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the 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); Singletary been warned of the consequences of Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th also Thomas v. Arn, waived appellate review see has 474 objections after receiving proper notice. U.S. by 140 failing (1985). to file 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.