US v. Frank Hogue, II, No. 18-7334 (4th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-7334 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. FRANK TERALD HOGUE, II, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:15-cr-00037-WO-2; 1:16-cv01079-WO-LPA) Submitted: June 27, 2019 Decided: July 26, 2019 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, HARRIS, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frank Terald Hogue, II, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Frank Terald Hogue, II, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Hogue that the 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. United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621-22 (2007); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Although Hogue filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, he has waived appellate review because the objections were not specific to the particularized legal recommendations made by the magistrate judge. See Midgette, 478 F.3d at 622 (holding that, “to preserve for appeal an issue in a magistrate judge’s report, a party must object to the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the objection”). Accordingly, we deny Hogue’s motion for 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.
