Case ID: f-appx_602/html/0136-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Thomas Curtis HAMILTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN OF LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee, and South Carolina Dept. of Corrections; William Byars, Respondents.
    No. 15-6197.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 19, 2015.
    Decided: May 22, 2015.
    
      Thomas Curtis Hamilton, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Curtis Hamilton 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. § 686(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Hamilton 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, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Hamilton 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 becáuse the facts and legal' contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.