John McCombs v. State of South Carolina, No. 19-7710 (4th Cir. 2020)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-7710 JOHN MCCOMBS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. R. Bryan Harwell, Chief District Judge. (2:19-cv-01086-RBH) Submitted: May 5, 2020 Decided: May 28, 2020 Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John McCombs, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: John McCombs, a South Carolina detainee, seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing McCombs’ 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2018) petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2018). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised McCombs that failure to file timely specific objections to this recommendation would 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). McCombs has waived appellate review by failing to file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny McCombs’ motions for appoint of counsel, immunity, discovery, and an independent evaluator. 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.