Samuel Simmons v. Warden McCabe, No. 13-6310 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6310 SAMUEL T. SIMMONS, Petitioner Appellant, v. WARDEN MCCABE, Respondent Appellee, and SOUTH CAROLINA, THE STATE OF, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (8:12-cv-00951-GRA) Submitted: April 25, 2013 Before AGEE and Circuit Judge. WYNN, Circuit Decided: April 30, 2013 Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel T. Simmons, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Samuel T. Simmons seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition.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. 2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Simmons 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 specific recommendation is objections necessary to to a preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have noncompliance. Cir. 1985); Simmons has been warned of the consequences of Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th see also waived Thomas v. appellate Arn, 474 review by objections after receiving proper notice. U.S. 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 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.