Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Taylor v. Angelone, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    0 views2 pages
    1) Julian Thomas Taylor filed a petition under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 seeking habeas corpus relief, which was referred to a magistrate judge. 2) The magistrate judge recommended denying relief and warned Taylor that failing to file timely objections could waive his right to appellate review. 3) Taylor failed to file objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation, so the Fourth Circuit dismissed his appeal, holding that he had waived his right to appellate review by not objecting after receiving proper notice.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2000-01-28 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 99-7208

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Julian Thomas Taylor filed a petition under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 seeking habeas corpus relief, which was referred to a magistrate judge. 2) The magistrate judge recommended denying relief and warned Taylor that failing to file timely objections could waive his right to appellate review. 3) Taylor failed to file objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation, so the Fourth Circuit dismissed his appeal, holding that he had waived his right to appellate review by not objecting after receiving proper notice.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    0 views2 pages

    Taylor v. Angelone, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Julian Thomas Taylor filed a petition under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 seeking habeas corpus relief, which was referred to a magistrate judge. 2) The magistrate judge recommended denying relief and warned Taylor that failing to file timely objections could waive his right to appellate review. 3) Taylor failed to file objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation, so the Fourth Circuit dismissed his appeal, holding that he had waived his right to appellate review by not objecting after receiving proper notice.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 99-7208

    JULIAN THOMAS TAYLOR,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia
    Department of Corrections,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District
    Judge. (CA-98-1404-2)

    Submitted:

    January 20, 2000

    Decided:

    January 28, 2000

    Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Julian Thomas Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel John Munroe, OFFICE
    OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Julian Thomas Taylor seeks to appeal the district courts
    order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2254 (West
    1994 & Supp. 1999).

    Taylors case was referred to a magistrate

    judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) (1994).

    The magistrate

    judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Taylor that


    failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could
    waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the
    recommendation.

    Despite this warning, Taylor failed to object to

    the magistrate judges recommendation.


    The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judges
    recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the
    substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned
    that failure to object will waive appellate review.

    See Wright v.

    Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v.
    Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review by
    failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.

    We ac-

    cordingly deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

    Furthermore, Taylors motion to appoint counsel is denied.

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court
    and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED

    You might also like