Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06711/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06711-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 16-6711

R. JAMES MILLER, JR.,

 Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

NENA WALKER-STALEY, Warden,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Aiken. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. 

(1:15-cv-01959-RBH)

Submitted: October 11, 2016 Decided: October 24, 2016

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert James Miller, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. James Anthony 

Mabrey, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6711 Doc: 5 Filed: 10/24/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert James Miller, Jr., 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 

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). Miller has waived appellate 

review by failing to file objections after being provided proper 

notice at his address of record. 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: 16-6711 Doc: 5 Filed: 10/24/2016 Pg: 2 of 2