Case Name: Kenyal Lamond RODGERS, a/k/a Kenyal Lamond Rogers, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Leroy CARTLEDGE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-06-23
Citations: 667 F. App'x 42
Docket Number: No. 16-6192
Parties: Kenyal Lamond RODGERS, a/k/a Kenyal Lamond Rogers, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Leroy CARTLEDGE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 667
Pages: 42–43

Head Matter:
Kenyal Lamond RODGERS, a/k/a Kenyal Lamond Rogers, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Leroy CARTLEDGE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 16-6192
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 21, 2016
Decided: June 23, 2016
Kenyal Lamond Rodger's, Appellant Pro Se.
Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kenyal Lamond Rodgers 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 Rodgers 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, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Rodgers has waived appellate review by failing to file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny Rodgers' motion for 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