Case Name: Roderick ENGLISH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-01-20
Citations: 673 F. App'x 355
Docket Number: No. 16-7601
Parties: Roderick ENGLISH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 673
Pages: 355–356

Head Matter:
Roderick ENGLISH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 16-7601
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: January 17, 2017
Decided: January 20, 2017
Roderick Jerome English, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. •
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Roderick Jerome English 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 English 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). English has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny English's pending motions, 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