George Tomlin v. Levern Cohen, No. 14-6589 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6589 GEORGE LEE TOMLIN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. LEVERN COHEN, Warden Ridgeland Correctional Inst, Respondent - Appellee, and ALAN WILSON, Attorney General, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (9:12-cv-03258-MGL) Submitted: June 19, 2014 Decided: June 23, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George Lee Tomlin, Appellant Pro Se. Tommy Evans, Jr., SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE & PARDON SERVICE, Columbia, South Carolina; Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: George Lee Tomlin, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court s order § 2241 (2012) petition. to a magistrate (2012). and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. The district court referred this case judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied advised Tomlin that failure to file timely and specific 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. been warned of the consequences of Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Tomlin has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. not satisfy this His request for extensions of time do requirement. 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 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.
