Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2 views

    Turner v. French, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) David Lee Turner filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking to appeal the district court's dismissal of his petition. 2) The district court referred the case to a magistrate judge who recommended that relief be denied. 3) Turner failed to file timely objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation, despite being warned that this could waive his right to appellate review. 4) Because Turner did not object after receiving proper notice, the Fourth Circuit found that he waived his right to appellate review and dismissed his appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Turner v. French, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    1) David Lee Turner filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking to appeal the district court's dismissal of his petition. 2) The district court referred the case to a magistrate judge who recommended that relief be denied. 3) Turner failed to file timely objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation, despite being warned that this could waive his right to appellate review. 4) Because Turner did not object after receiving proper notice, the Fourth Circuit found that he waived his right to appellate review and dismissed his appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-12-09 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-6996

    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) David Lee Turner filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking to appeal the district court's dismissal of his petition. 2) The district court referred the case to a magistrate judge who recommended that relief be denied. 3) Turner failed to file timely objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation, despite being warned that this could waive his right to appellate review. 4) Because Turner did not object after receiving proper notice, the Fourth Circuit found that he waived his right to appellate review and dismissed his appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    Turner v. French, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) David Lee Turner filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking to appeal the district court's dismissal of his petition. 2) The district court referred the case to a magistrate judge who recommended that relief be denied. 3) Turner failed to file timely objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation, despite being warned that this could waive his right to appellate review. 4) Because Turner did not object after receiving proper notice, the Fourth Circuit found that he waived his right to appellate review and dismissed his appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 05-6996

    DAVID LEE TURNER,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    JAMES FRENCH,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
    William L. Osteen,
    District Judge. (CA-05-3-1)

    Submitted:

    November 16, 2005

    Decided:

    December 9, 2005

    Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    David Lee Turner, Appellant Pro Se.


    Sandra Wallace-Smith,
    Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    David Lee Turner seeks to appeal the district courts
    order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2000).
    The

    district

    court

    referred

    this

    case

    to

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

    magistrate

    judge

    The magistrate judge

    recommended that relief be denied and advised Turner that failure


    to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive
    appellate

    review

    recommendation.

    of

    district

    court

    order

    based

    upon

    the

    Despite this warning, Turner failed to object to

    the magistrate judges recommendation.


    The timely filing of specific 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).

    Turner has waived appellate

    review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.


    Accordingly, we deny 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
    the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    - 2 -

    You might also like