Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-06923/USCOURTS-ca4-19-06923-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 19-6923

RONALD S. TILLMAN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL STEPHAN,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Anderson. David C. Norton, District Judge. (8:18-cv-02021-DCN)

Submitted: January 23, 2020 Decided: January 28, 2020 

Before WYNN, DIAZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald S. Tillman, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-6923 Doc: 12 Filed: 01/28/2020 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Ronald S. Tillman, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying 

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2018) petition. The district court referred this case to a

magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2018). The magistrate judge 

recommended that relief be denied and advised Tillman that failure to 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). Tillman 

has waived appellate review by failing to file specific objections after receiving proper 

notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Tillman’s motion to 

proceed in forma pauperis, 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

USCA4 Appeal: 19-6923 Doc: 12 Filed: 01/28/2020 Pg: 2 of 2