Case Name: Michael Harrison HUNT, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-05-09
Citations: 688 F. App'x 232
Docket Number: No. 16-7660
Parties: Michael Harrison HUNT, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 688
Pages: 232–233

Head Matter:
Michael Harrison HUNT, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 16-7660
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 27, 2017
Decided: May 9, 2017
Michael Harrison Hunt, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Before TRAXLER, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Harrison Hunt 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 dismissing the petition as successive and advised Hunt 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). Hunt has waived appellate review by failing to file objections. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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