Freddie Jones v. Dennis Bush, No. 15-6808 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6808 FREDDIE RICHARD JONES, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DENNIS BUSH, Warden Lee Correctional Institution, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District Judge. (0:14-cv-01760-TLW) Submitted: October 26, 2015 Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge. FLOYD, Circuit Decided: Judges, and November 23, 2015 HAMILTON, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Freddie Richard Jones, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Freddie Richard Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The district court referred this case to a pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). magistrate judge The magistrate judge recommended that the petition be dismissed as untimely and advised Jones 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 841, 845-46 (4th Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). review notice. by failing to file Cir. 1985); also Jones has waived appellate objections after receiving proper Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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 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.
