Case Name: Calvin Lyndale GADDY, a/k/a Calvin L. Gaddy, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WARDEN OF LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Defendant-Appellee, and South Carolina, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-05-23
Citations: 639 F. App'x 971
Docket Number: No. 16-6387
Parties: Calvin Lyndale GADDY, a/k/a Calvin L. Gaddy, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WARDEN OF LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Defendant-Appellee, and South Carolina, Defendant.
Judges: Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 639
Pages: 971–972

Head Matter:
Calvin Lyndale GADDY, a/k/a Calvin L. Gaddy, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WARDEN OF LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Defendant-Appellee, and South Carolina, Defendant.
No. 16-6387.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 18, 2016.
Decided: May 23, 2016.
Calvin Lyndale Gaddy, Appellant Pro Se.
Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Calvin Lyndale Gaddy 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 Gaddy 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, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Gaddy has waived appellate review by failing to file specific 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.