James C. Whaley v. Warden Tyger River Correctional Institution

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-7398
JAMES C. WHALEY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN TYGER RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent - Appellee,
and
SOUTH CAROLINA,
Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (4:20-cv-04366-HMH)
Submitted: February 17, 2022 Decided: February 23, 2022
Before AGEE and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James C. Whaley, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
James C. Whaley 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 Whaley 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 Whaley 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, deny Whaley’s motion for
discovery, and dismiss the appeal.
* To the extent Whaley asserts on appeal that he is actually innocent of his
underlying criminal offenses, a claim he preserved below, we conclude that he fails to make
the requisite showing. See Mahdi v. Stirling, 20 F.4th 846, 893 n.32 (4th Cir. 2021) (noting

-- 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
that showing of actual innocence requires demonstrating “factual innocence, not mere legal
insufficiency” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

-- 3 of 3 --