Garris Amerson v. Warden Stevenson, No. 12-7175 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7175 GARRIS E. AMERSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN STEVENSON, Broad River Correctional Institution, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. David C. Norton, District Judge. (4:11-cv-03266-DCN) Submitted: November 30, 2012 Decided: January 9, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Garris E. Amerson, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Garris E. Amerson seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. 1 The district court referred this case to a magistrate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). judge The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Amerson 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, Amerson failed to timely object to the magistrate judge s recommendation. 2 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); see been warned of the consequences of Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Amerson has waived appellate review by failing to timely file 1 To the extent that Amerson also seeks to appeal the district court s denial of his motion for reconsideration, we conclude that Amerson failed to note his appeal as required by Fed. R. App. P. 3. 2 Amerson s informal brief fails to argue that his objections were timely. This court will address only issues properly raised in the informal brief. 4th Cir. R. 34(b). 2 specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this 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.
