Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06192/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06192-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 16-6192

KENYAL LAMOND RODGERS, a/k/a Kenyal Lamond Rogers,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

LEROY CARTLEDGE, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Bruce H. Hendricks, District 

Judge. (5:15-cv-00777-BHH)

Submitted: June 21, 2016 Decided: June 23, 2016

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenyal Lamond Rodgers, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Assistant 

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6192 Doc: 6 Filed: 06/23/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Kenyal Lamond Rodgers 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)(B) (2012). The magistrate 

judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Rodgers 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). Rodgers has waived 

appellate review by failing to file specific objections after 

receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny Rodgers’ motion 

for 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: 16-6192 Doc: 6 Filed: 06/23/2016 Pg: 2 of 2