Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06387/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06387-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Calvin Lyndale Gaddy
Appellant
Lieber Correctional Institution
Appellee
South Carolina

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6387

CALVIN LYNDALE GADDY, a/k/a Calvin L. Gaddy,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN OF LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Defendant – Appellee,

and

SOUTH CAROLINA,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (8:15-cv-03706-JFA)

Submitted: May 18, 2016 Decided: May 23, 2016

Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Calvin Lyndale Gaddy, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6387 Doc: 6 Filed: 05/23/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Calvin Lyndale Gaddy 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 Gaddy that 

failure to file timely, specific 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). Gaddy has waived appellate 

review by failing to file specific 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: 16-6387 Doc: 6 Filed: 05/23/2016 Pg: 2 of 2