David G. Damron v. Gene A. Scroggy, Warden

826 F.2d 1062, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 10668, 1987 WL 38402
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedAugust 11, 1987
Docket86-6190
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 826 F.2d 1062 (David G. Damron v. Gene A. Scroggy, Warden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
David G. Damron v. Gene A. Scroggy, Warden, 826 F.2d 1062, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 10668, 1987 WL 38402 (6th Cir. 1987).

Opinion

826 F.2d 1062

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
David G. DAMRON, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Gene A. SCROGGY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 86-6190

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Aug. 11, 1987.

ORDER

Before LIVELY, Chief Judge, KEITH, Circuit Judge, and DOWD, District Judge.*

This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination of the briefs and record, this panel agrees unanimously that oral argument is not needed. Rule 34(a), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Petitioner filed this action for federal habeas corpus relief (28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254) contesting the constitutionality of 1985 Kentucky convictions for assault and persistent felony offender. The magistrate to whom the matter was referred recommended dismissing the petition. This recommendation carried the notation that further appeal would be waived if petitioner failed to file timely objections to the recommendation. Petitioner did not file objections with the district court as advised. The court adopted the recommendation and this appeal followed. On appeal the parties have submitted briefs, petitioner proceeding pro se.

Upon consideration, we conclude petitioner's failure to file timely objections to the magistrate's report and recommendation constituted a waiver of further appellate review. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466 (1985). We affirm. Rule 9(b)(4), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

*

The Honorable David D. Dowd, Jr., U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Marcum v. Duchak
S.D. Ohio, 2021

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
826 F.2d 1062, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 10668, 1987 WL 38402, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-g-damron-v-gene-a-scroggy-warden-ca6-1987.