Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06523/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06523-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 10-6523

DAVID EUGENE GREGG, SR.,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

NFN MCCALL,

Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (4:08-cv-03423-GRA)

Submitted: June 24, 2010 Decided: July 1, 2010

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Eugene Gregg, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, 

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-6523 Doc: 8 Filed: 07/01/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

David Eugene Gregg, Sr., seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate 

judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 

2010). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied 

and advised Gregg 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 (1985). Gregg 

has waived appellate review by failing to file timely 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

Appeal: 10-6523 Doc: 8 Filed: 07/01/2010 Pg: 2 of 2