Case ID: f-appx_115/html/0641-01.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

Douglas A. TURNER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Collie RUSHTON, Warden, McCormick Correctional Institution; Henry McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 04-7165.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 9, 2004.
    Decided Dec. 15, 2004.
    Douglas A. Turner, Appellant pro se. Samuel Creighton Waters, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Douglas A. Turner seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) for failure to prosecute his claim under Fed. R.Civ.P. 41(b). The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Turner that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Turner failed to object to the magistrate judge’s 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 that failure to object will waive appellate review. See 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). Turner 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED