Case Name: Micheal Dwight DAY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-06-29
Citations: 667 F. App'x 64
Docket Number: No. 16-6449
Parties: Micheal Dwight DAY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 667
Pages: 64–65

Head Matter:
Micheal Dwight DAY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 16-6449
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 23, 2016
Decided: June 29, 2016
Micheál Dwight Day, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Micheál Dwight Day 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 Day 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). Day 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