James Hardin v. Leroy Cartledge, No. 10-7047 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7047 JAMES HARDIN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. LEROY CARTLEDGE, Acting Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior District Judge. (3:08-cv-02334-PMD) Submitted: February 28, 2011 Decided: March 8, 2011 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Hardin, Appellant Pro Se. James Anthony Mabry, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: James Hardin seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition, and its subsequent order denying his motion to vacate judgment and for leave to file objections. this case to a magistrate The district court referred judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2010). The magistrate judge recommended advised failure that to relief file be denied timely, and specific Hardin objections that to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The magistrate timely judge s filing of specific recommendation 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). Hardin has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice and receiving an extension of time to file objections. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability 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.
