John Foster Norris v. Warden, Evans Correctional Institution

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6960
JOHN FOSTER NORRIS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN, EVANS CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent - Appellee,
and
SOUTH CAROLINA, STATE OF; DEPARTMENT OF CORR.
Respondents.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
Hill. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (0:22-cv-00736-HMH)
Submitted: January 17, 2023 Decided: January 20, 2023
Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Foster Norris, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
John Foster Norris 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 Norris 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).
Although Norris received proper notice and filed timely objections to the magistrate
judge’s recommendation, he has waived appellate review because the objections were not
specific to the particularized legal recommendations made by the magistrate judge. See
Martin, 858 F.3d at 245 (holding that, “to preserve for appeal an issue in a magistrate
judge’s report, a party must object to the finding or recommendation on that issue with
sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the
objection” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, we deny 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 --