Yesenia Ramirez v. Angela Rawski, No. 16-7147 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7147 YESENIA CORTEZ RAMIREZ, Petitioner – Appellant, v. WARDEN ANGELA RAWSKI, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (0:15-cv-04631-MGL) Submitted: December 15, 2016 Decided: December 20, 2016 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Yesenia Cortez Ramirez, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Caroline M. Scrantom, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Yesenia Cortez Ramirez seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her 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 relief be denied and advised Ramirez that failure to file timely, specific 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, 766 F.2d 841, 845 46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Ramirez has waived appellate review of her claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and actual innocence by failing to file specific objections after receiving proper notice. To the extent Ramirez filed specific objections to the magistrate judge’s statement that the court would not consider filings Ramirez had not signed, we conclude that Ramirez fails to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012); see Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). 2 Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. facts and materials legal before deny a certificate of appealability and We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the 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.
