Robert Mitchell v. Warden of Broad River, No. 13-6816 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on September 10, 2013.
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6816 ROBERT L. MITCHELL, a/k/a Robert Lee Mitchell, a/k/a Robert Mitchell, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN OF BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent - Appellee, and BILL BYARS, Director SC Dept of Corrections, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (4:13-cv-00470-CMC) Submitted: July 25, 2013 Decided: July 30, 2013 Before GREGORY, DAVIS, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert L. Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robert court s order L. dismissing (2006) petition. magistrate Mitchell as be timely and to appeal successive his 28 the district U.S.C. § 2254 The district court referred this case to a judge pursuant (West 2006 & Supp. 2013). relief seeks denied and specific to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) The magistrate judge recommended that advised Mitchell objections to that this failure to recommendation file 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 been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 315-16 F.3d 766 F.2d 310, 841, 845-46 (4th (4th Cir. Cir. 2005); 1985). Wright v. Mitchell Collins, has waived appellate review of the district court s order by failing to file objections to the magistrate judge s recommendation 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 contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials before this 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.
