Dale Epps v. Leroy Cartledge, No. 11-6188 (4th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6188 DALE S. EPPS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. LEROY CARTLEDGE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (1:09-cv-02007-RMG) Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: June 1, 2011 Before KING, SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dale S. Epps, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Alphonso Simon, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Dale S. Epps 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.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2010). The magistrate advised Epps judge that recommended failure to file that relief timely be denied objections to and 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. been warned of the consequences Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). has waived of appellate review by failing objections after receiving proper notice. to file Epps specific 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.