John Robinson v. SC Dept PPPS, No. 17-7027 (4th Cir. 2017)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-7027 JOHN C. ROBINSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION PAROLE AND PARDON SERVICES; WARDEN, BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (1:16-cv-03324-TMC) Submitted: December 19, 2017 Decided: December 21, 2017 Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John C. Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Tommy Evans, Jr., SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE & PARDON SERVICE, Columbia, South Carolina; Christina Catoe Bigelow, SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: John C. Robinson 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 Robinson that failure to file timely 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). Robinson 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.