Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Boston v. Warden, Lee Correctional Institution, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Frank Boston, a state prisoner, seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Boston's case was referred to a magistrate judge who recommended relief be denied. Boston failed to file a timely objection to the magistrate's recommendation, and as a result has waived his right to appellate review. The Fourth Circuit thus dismisses Boston's appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2008-07-01 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-6209

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Frank Boston, a state prisoner, seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Boston's case was referred to a magistrate judge who recommended relief be denied. Boston failed to file a timely objection to the magistrate's recommendation, and as a result has waived his right to appellate review. The Fourth Circuit thus dismisses Boston's appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    Boston v. Warden, Lee Correctional Institution, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Frank Boston, a state prisoner, seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Boston's case was referred to a magistrate judge who recommended relief be denied. Boston failed to file a timely objection to the magistrate's recommendation, and as a result has waived his right to appellate review. The Fourth Circuit thus dismisses Boston's appeal.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 08-6209

    FRANK BOSTON,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    WARDEN,
    LEE
    CORRECTIONAL
    DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

    INSTITUTION;

    SOUTH

    CAROLINA

    Respondents - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Beaufort.
    Patrick Michael Duffy, District
    Judge. (9:07-cv-01861-PMD)

    Submitted:

    June 26, 2008

    Decided:

    July 1, 2008

    Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit
    Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Frank Boston, Appellant Pro Se.


    Erin Mary Farrell, John Eric
    Kaufmann, MCKAY, CAUTHEN, SETTANA & STUBLEY, PA, Columbia, South
    Carolina, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Frank Boston, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the
    district courts order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2241
    (2000) petition.

    Bostons case was referred to a magistrate judge

    pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) (2000).

    The magistrate judge

    recommended that relief be denied and advised Boston that failure


    to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive
    appellate

    review

    of

    district

    court

    order

    based

    upon

    the

    recommendation. Despite this warning, Boston failed to timely


    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.
    Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985).
    Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).

    Wright v.

    See generally

    Boston has waived appellate

    review by failing to file timely objections after receiving proper


    notice.

    We accordingly deny a certificate of appealability and

    dismiss the appeal.


    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the

    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.
    DISMISSED

    - 2 -

    You might also like