Eddie Dean Dogan, Jr. v. Warden Barry Tucker

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-6249
EDDIE DEAN DOGAN, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN BARRY TUCKER,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Florence. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (4:19-cv-00030-HMH)
Submitted: April 18, 2019 Decided: May 1, 2019
Before KEENAN and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eddie Dean Dogan, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Eddie Dean Dogan, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28
U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as successive. The district court referred this case to a
magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge
recommended that relief be denied and advised Dogan that failure to file timely, specific
objections to this recommendation would waive appellate review of a district court order
based upon the recommendation. Although Dogan filed timely objections to the
magistrate judge’s recommendation, the district court determined that the objections were
nonspecific and unrelated to the magistrate judge’s dispositive findings. 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. Wright v. Collins, 766
F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (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). Dogan has waived appellate review by failing
to file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny his motion
for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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

-- 3 of 3 --