Case Name: Kenneth Lee HUCKABEE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Chip STEVENSON, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-11-29
Citations: 671 F. App'x 76
Docket Number: No. 15-7570
Parties: Kenneth Lee HUCKABEE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Chip STEVENSON, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 671
Pages: 76–77

Head Matter:
Kenneth Lee HUCKABEE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Chip STEVENSON, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 15-7570
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: November 22, 2016
Decided: November 29, 2016
Kenneth Lee Huckabee, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney General, , Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Lee Huckabee 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 Huckabee 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). Huckabee has waived appellate review by failing to timely 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