Mayron Gilree v. Cecelia Reynolds , 613 F. App'x 240 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 15-6767
    MAYRON R. GILREE,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    CECELIA REYNOLDS,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Rock Hill.     Richard Mark Gergel, District
    Judge. (0:14-cv-03686-RMG)
    Submitted:   August 20, 2015                 Decided:   August 25, 2015
    Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Mayron R. Gilree, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior
    Assistant Attorney General, Caroline M. Scrantom, OFFICE OF THE
    ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Mayron R. Gilree seeks to appeal the district court’s order
    dismissing as untimely 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 Gilree 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.                              Wright v.
    Collins,       
    766 F.2d 841
    ,     845-46    (4th    Cir.         1985);   see    also
    Thomas v. Arn, 
    474 U.S. 140
    (1985).                Gilree 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-6767

Citation Numbers: 613 F. App'x 240

Judges: Duncan, Keenan, Per Curiam, Wynn

Filed Date: 8/25/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024