Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06995/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06995-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Teresa Miller
Appellant
State of West Virginia
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6995

TERESA MILLER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey, 

District Judge. (2:16-cv-00007-JPB-RWT)

Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 22, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit 

Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Teresa Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Young, OFFICE OF THE 

ATTORNEY GENERAL, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6995 Doc: 13 Filed: 11/22/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Teresa Miller seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying relief on her 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 Miller 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). Miller has waived appellate 

review by failing to file objections after receiving proper 

notice. Accordingly, we deny Miller’s motions to admit 

additional evidence and for disclosure of the presentence 

report, 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: 16-6995 Doc: 13 Filed: 11/22/2016 Pg: 2 of 2