Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06167/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06167-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 15-6167

FELIPE TRUJILLO,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

JOHN PATE, Warden, Allendale Correctional Institution,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. 

(2:14-cv-00361-TMC)

Submitted: April 16, 2015 Decided: April 21, 2015

Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Felipe Trujillo, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 15-6167 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/21/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Felipe Trujillo 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 Trujillo 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). Trujillo has waived 

appellate review by failing to timely file objections after 

receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny Trujillo’s motion 

for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

 * To the extent that Trujillo also seeks to appeal the 

district court’s denial of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion, we 

lack jurisdiction to consider that order because he did not file 

a notice of appeal until after the appeal period expired. See

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), (a)(4)(B)(ii); Bowles v. Russell, 

551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

Appeal: 15-6167 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/21/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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: 15-6167 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/21/2015 Pg: 3 of 3