DocketNumber: 16-6192
Citation Numbers: 667 F. App'x 42
Judges: Duncan, Keenan, Per Curiam, Thacker
Filed Date: 6/23/2016
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/6/2024
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6192 KENYAL LAMOND RODGERS, a/k/a Kenyal Lamond Rogers, Petitioner - Appellant, v. LEROY CARTLEDGE, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (5:15-cv-00777-BHH) Submitted: June 21, 2016 Decided: June 23, 2016 Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenyal Lamond Rodgers, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kenyal Lamond Rodgers 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 Rodgers 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). Rodgers has waived appellate review by failing to file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny Rodgers’ motion for 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