Felipe Trujillo v. John Pate, No. 15-6167 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6167 FELIPE TRUJILLO, Petitioner - Appellant, v. JOHN PATE, Warden, Allendale Correctional Institution, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (2:14-cv-00361-TMC) Submitted: April 16, 2015 Decided: April 21, 2015 Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Felipe Trujillo, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Felipe Trujillo seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. * The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. recommended § 636(b)(1)(B) that relief be (2012). denied and The magistrate advised judge Trujillo that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, see 766 F.2d Thomas v. Arn, appellate review 474 by 841, U.S. 845-46 140 failing receiving proper notice. (4th (1985). to timely Cir. 1985); Trujillo file has objections also waived after Accordingly, we deny Trujillo’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. * To the extent that Trujillo also seeks to appeal the district court’s denial of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion, we lack jurisdiction to consider that order because he did not file a notice of appeal until after the appeal period expired. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), (a)(4)(B)(ii); Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). 2 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 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.
