# Brown v. Pate

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · April 24, 2003 · 60 F. App'x 983

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1010335

## Case

- **Full name:** Christopher A. BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. PATE, Acting Warden of Allendale Correctional Institution; Charles M. Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** April 24, 2003
- **Citations:** 60 F. App'x 983
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Widener, Williams, Motz
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1010335

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6260

CHRISTOPHER A. BROWN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

PATE, Acting Warden of Allendale Correctional
Institution; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney
General of the State of South Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CA-02-84-1)

Submitted: April 17, 2003 Decided: April 24, 2003

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher A. Brown, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

Christopher A. Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).

The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge

recommended that relief be denied and advised Brown that failure to

file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate

review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

Despite this warning, Brown failed to object to the magistrate

judge’s 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 that failure to object will waive appellate review. See

Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Brown has waived appellate

review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1010335. Public record. Not legal advice.