Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06473/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06473-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6473

JERRY MARVIN GALBREATH,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

LEROY CARTLEDGE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Aiken. Richard M. Gergel, District Judge. 

(1:14-cv-00110-RMG)

Submitted: August 31, 2015 Decided: September 4, 2015

Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerry Marvin Galbreath, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, 

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6473 Doc: 7 Filed: 09/04/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Jerry Marvin Galbreath 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)(A) (2012). The magistrate 

judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Galbreath

that failure to file timely and 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 (1985). Galbreath has waived 

appellate review by failing to file specific 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 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-6473 Doc: 7 Filed: 09/04/2015 Pg: 2 of 2