Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07896/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07896-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brenda Nesbitt
Appellant
Superintendent of Leath Correctional Institution
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7896

BRENDA NESBITT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

SUPERINTENDENT OF LEATH CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Orangeburg. R. Bryan Harwell, District 

Judge. (5:14-cv-00344-RBH)

Submitted: April 23, 2015 Decided: April 28, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brenda Nesbitt, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, Kaycie Smith Timmons, Assistant 

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7896 Doc: 12 Filed: 04/28/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Brenda Nesbitt seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying relief on her 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 Nesbitt 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). Nesbitt has waived 

appellate review by failing to file 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: 14-7896 Doc: 12 Filed: 04/28/2015 Pg: 2 of 2