Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07081/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07081-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 16-7081

MICHAEL TYRELL MCKNIGHT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

SOUTH CAROLINA, STATE OF,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior

District Judge. (2:15-cv-03149-MBS)

Submitted: November 22, 2016 Decided: November 28, 2016

Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Tyrell McKnight, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7081 Doc: 8 Filed: 11/28/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Tyrell McKnight 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 

McKnight that failure to timely file 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). McKnight 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: 16-7081 Doc: 8 Filed: 11/28/2016 Pg: 2 of 2