Deshawn Lee Powell v. WARDEN OF LEE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, State of South Carolina

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-7131
DESHAWN LEE POWELL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN OF LEE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, State of South Carolina,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken.
Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (1:21-cv-03133-DCC)
Submitted: July 20, 2023 Decided: July 24, 2023
Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
DeShawn Lee Powell, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
DeShawn Lee Powell 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 Powell 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 Powell received proper notice
and filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, his objections were
not specific to the particularized legal recommendations regarding procedural default made
by the magistrate judge, so appellate review is foreclosed. 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. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

-- 2 of 3 --

3
presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --