Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06477/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06477-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tyrone R. Gladden
Appellant
O. Washington
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6477

TYRONE R. GLADDEN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

O. WASHINGTON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, 

District Judge. (1:15-cv-00207-TDS-JLW)

Submitted: August 18, 2016 Decided: August 23, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tyrone R. Gladden, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Andrew Regulski, 

Assistant Attorney General, Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH 

CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6477 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/23/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Tyrone R. Gladden 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 Gladden 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). Gladden has waived 

appellate review by failing to file specific objections after 

receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of 

appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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: 16-6477 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/23/2016 Pg: 2 of 2