Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06392/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06392-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Johnny Ray Gambrell
Appellant
SC
Appellee
Warden, Broad River Correctional Institution
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6392

JOHNNY RAY GAMBRELL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

SC, STATE OF; WARDEN, BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. J. Michelle Childs, District 

Judge. (2:13-cv-02911-JMC)

Submitted: May 21, 2015 Decided: May 27, 2015

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Johnny Ray Gambrell, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, 

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6392 Doc: 7 Filed: 05/27/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Johnny Ray Gambrell 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 Gambrell

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). Gambrell 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: 15-6392 Doc: 7 Filed: 05/27/2015 Pg: 2 of 2