Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07205/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07205-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Donald W. Gay
Appellant
Cecelia Reynolds
Appellee
SCDC Director
Appellee
State of South Carolina
Appellee
Alan Wilson
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7205

DONALD W. GAY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; LEE WARDEN CECELIA REYNOLDS; SCDC 

DIRECTOR NFN STIRLING; ATTORNEY GENERAL ALAN WILSON,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Beaufort. Cameron McGowan Currie, District 

Judge. (9:15-cv-02134-CMC)

Submitted: November 17, 2015 Decided: November 20, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald W. Gay, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7205 Doc: 5 Filed: 11/20/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Donald W. Gay seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing as successive 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 Gay 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). Gay 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: 15-7205 Doc: 5 Filed: 11/20/2015 Pg: 2 of 2