Case ID: f-appx_283/html/0116-01.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

William CLINE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David BALLARD, Warden, Mount Olive Correctional Complex, Respondent-Appellee, and Thomas McBride, Warden, Mount Olive Correctional Complex; Howard Painter, Warden, Mt. Olive Correctional Complex, Respondents.
    No. 08-6577.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 26, 2008.
    Decided: July 3, 2008.
    William Cline, Appellant Pro Se. Dawn Ellen Warfield, Deputy Attorney General, Robert David Goldberg, Allen Hayes Loughry, II, Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Office of the Attorney General of West Virginia, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

William Cline seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. 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 Cline 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, Cline 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 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). Cline has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific objections to the magistrate judge’s report 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. 
      
       Contrary to Cline's assertion on appeal, his objections to the Respondent’s motion for summary judgment cannot serve as objections to the magistrate judge’s subsequent report and recommendation.