Daniel Sherman v. Michael McCall, No. 12-6777 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6777 DANIEL EUGENE SHERMAN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. MICHAEL MCCALL, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (5:10-cv-02571-JFA) Submitted: August 22, 2012 Decided: August 27, 2012 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daniel Eugene Sherman, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Brendan McDonald, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Daniel court s order petition. Eugene denying Sherman relief seeks on his to appeal 28 U.S.C. the district § 2254 (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. 2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Sherman that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Sherman one extension of time to file The court granted objections, but no objections were forthcoming. 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 have 1985); Sherman has warned of the see also waived Thomas v. appellate Arn, 474 review by objections after receiving proper notice. merit in failure Sherman s to Accordingly, consequences of Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th noncompliance. Cir. been motion object we deny to asking the that this U.S. failing appealability and dismiss the appeal. 2 (1985). to file Further, we find no court magistrate motion 140 and to excuse judge s a his report. certificate of 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.
