Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Ford v. Johnson, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Raymond Ford's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. The district court had referred the case to a magistrate judge, who recommended denying relief. Ford failed to file timely objections to the magistrate's recommendation, despite being warned that this could waive his right to appellate review. As Ford did not preserve his objections, the appeals court dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2009-12-04 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 09-7786

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Raymond Ford's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. The district court had referred the case to a magistrate judge, who recommended denying relief. Ford failed to file timely objections to the magistrate's recommendation, despite being warned that this could waive his right to appellate review. As Ford did not preserve his objections, the appeals court dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    4 views3 pages

    Ford v. Johnson, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Raymond Ford's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. The district court had referred the case to a magistrate judge, who recommended denying relief. Ford failed to file timely objections to the magistrate's recommendation, despite being warned that this could waive his right to appellate review. As Ford did not preserve his objections, the appeals court dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 09-7786

    RAYMOND ALEXANDER FORD, JR.,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    GENE M. JOHNSON,
    Corrections,

    Director

    of

    the

    Virginia

    Department

    of

    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
    Judge. (2:09-cv-00143-RBS-JEB)

    Submitted:

    November 19, 2009

    Decided:

    December 4, 2009

    Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Raymond Alexander Ford, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Craig Stallard,


    Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Raymond A. Ford seeks to appeal the district courts
    order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2006) petition.
    The

    district

    court

    referred

    this

    case

    to

    pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) (2006).

    magistrate

    judge

    The magistrate

    judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Ford 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, Ford failed to object to

    the magistrate judges recommendation.


    The
    magistrate

    timely

    judges

    filing

    of

    recommendation

    specific
    is

    objections

    necessary

    to

    to

    preserve

    appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when


    the

    parties

    noncompliance.

    have

    been

    warned

    of

    the

    consequences

    of

    Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th

    Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).

    Ford

    has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific


    objections after receiving proper notice.

    Accordingly, we deny

    a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

    Although Ford contends on appeal that he timely filed in


    the district court a motion for extension of time to file
    objections, the district court docket sheet reflects no such
    filing.

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and


    legal
    before

    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in
    aid

    the
    the

    materials
    decisional

    process.
    DISMISSED

    You might also like