Case ID: f-appx_610/html/0315-02.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

Jake HENDRIX, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Director Michael Moore, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-6675.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 23, 2015.
    Decided: July 28, 2015.
    
      Jake Hendrix, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not. binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jake Hendrix seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief <?n 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 Hendrix 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, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Hendrix has waived appellate review by failing to file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny Hendrix’s motion to appoint counsel, 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.