Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06767/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06767-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mayron R. Gilree
Appellant
Cecelia Reynolds
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6767

MAYRON R. GILREE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

CECELIA REYNOLDS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Richard Mark Gergel, District 

Judge. (0:14-cv-03686-RMG)

Submitted: August 20, 2015 Decided: August 25, 2015

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mayron R. Gilree, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, Caroline M. Scrantom, OFFICE OF THE 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, 

for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6767 Doc: 7 Filed: 08/25/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Mayron R. Gilree 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 Gilree 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). Gilree 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: 15-6767 Doc: 7 Filed: 08/25/2015 Pg: 2 of 2