Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07161/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07161-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Henry Green
Appellant
Cecilia Reynolds
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7161

HENRY GREEN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

CECILIA REYNOLDS, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Richard M. Gergel, District Judge. 

(5:15-cv-04867-RMG)

Submitted: November 22, 2016 Decided: November 28, 2016

Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit 

Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henry Green, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant 

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7161 Doc: 7 Filed: 11/28/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Henry Green seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

dismissing as untimely 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 Green 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). Green has waived appellate review by failing to 

timely file objections after receiving proper notice. Moreover, 

the district court’s subsequent consideration of the objections 

“cannot cure the failure to properly and timely object.” Massey v. 

Ojaniit, 759 F.3d 343, 352 (4th Cir. 2014). 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: 16-7161 Doc: 7 Filed: 11/28/2016 Pg: 2 of 2