Sherman Dewalt v. Warden Leroy Cartledge

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7452
SHERMAN DEWALT,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN LEROY CARTLEDGE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge.
(1:14-cv-02335-MGL)
Submitted: March 16, 2016 Decided: April 8, 2016
Before DUNCAN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sherman Dewalt, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Alphonso Simon, Jr., Assistant
Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Sherman Dewalt seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. 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 Dewalt 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. Wright v.
Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Moreover, an appellant may
not “preserve arguments merely by incorporating them by
reference in a few sentences in his brief.” McCarver v. Lee,
221 F.3d 583, 588 n.1 (4th Cir. 2000). Dewalt has waived
appellate review by failing to specifically object to the
magistrate judge’s findings on the issues he asserts on appeal
after receiving proper notice. 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 --