Dogan v. Tucker

PER CURIAM

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (4:19-cv-00030-HMH) Before KEENAN and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eddie Dean Dogan, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Eddie Dean Dogan, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as successive. 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 Dogan that failure to file timely, specific objections to this recommendation would waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Although Dogan filed timely objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation, the district court determined that the objections were nonspecific and unrelated to the magistrate judge's dispositive findings. After conducting its review, the court adopted the magistrate judge's report and 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). To qualify as specific, a party's objections to a magistrate judge's recommendations must "reasonably . . . alert the district court of the true ground for the objection." United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 622 (4th Cir. 2007); see also United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 428 (4th Cir. 2008) (same). Dogan has waived appellate review by failing to file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny his 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