BYRD v. STEPHON (2020)

Bryan Byrd seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2018) petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2018). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Byrd that failure to file timely, specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Although Byrd filed timely objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation, the district court determined that the objections were nonspecific, unrelated to the magistrate judge's dispositive findings, and merely restated Byrd's claims. 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. Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846-47 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154-55, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (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). Byrd has waived appellate review by failing to file specific objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

PER CURIAM:

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.