Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-08209/USCOURTS-ca4-09-08209-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gustavo Alvarado
Appellant
Tim Riley
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-8209

GUSTAVO ALVARADO,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

TIM RILEY, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior

District Judge. (2:09-cv-01035-PMD)

Submitted: March 16, 2010 Decided: March 24, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gustavo Alvarado, Appellant Pro Se. Alphonso Simon, Jr., OFFICE 

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Donald John Zelenka, 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-8209 Doc: 6 Filed: 03/24/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Gustavo Alvarado seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. 

The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). The magistrate 

judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Alvarado

that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation 

could waive appellate review of a district court order based 

upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Alvarado failed 

to object to the magistrate judge’s 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). 

Alvarado has waived appellate review by failing to timely 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 09-8209 Doc: 6 Filed: 03/24/2010 Pg: 2 of 2