Edward R. Anthony v. South Carolina Deparment of Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6115
EDWARD R. ANTHONY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE, AND
PARDON SERVICES,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort.
Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (9:21-cv-01143-BHH)
Submitted: May 19, 2022 Decided: May 24, 2022
Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edward R. Anthony, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Edward R. Anthony seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his
28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be
denied and advised Anthony that failure to file timely, specific objections to this
recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the
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 (1985). Anthony has waived appellate review
by failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after receiving
proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability; deny Anthony’s
pending motions to reverse the district court’s decision, appoint counsel, and vacate his
conviction; 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

-- 2 of 2 --