Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06675/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06675-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jake Hendrix
Appellant
Michael Moore
Appellee
The State of South Carolina
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6675

JAKE HENDRIX,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; DIRECTOR MICHAEL MOORE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. 

(4:14-cv-00971-JMC)

Submitted: July 23, 2015 Decided: July 28, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jake Hendrix, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6675 Doc: 9 Filed: 07/28/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Jake Hendrix 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 Hendrix 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). Hendrix has waived appellate review by failing 

to file specific objections after receiving proper notice. 

Accordingly, we deny Hendrix’s motion to appoint counsel, 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: 15-6675 Doc: 9 Filed: 07/28/2015 Pg: 2 of 2