Case Name: Donald W. GAY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Lee Warden Cecelia Reynolds; SCDC Director NFN Stirling; Attorney General Alan Wilson, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-11-20
Citations: 622 F. App'x 282
Docket Number: No. 15-7205
Parties: Donald W. GAY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Lee Warden Cecelia Reynolds; SCDC Director NFN Stirling; Attorney General Alan Wilson, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 622
Pages: 282–283

Head Matter:
Donald W. GAY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Lee Warden Cecelia Reynolds; SCDC Director NFN Stirling; Attorney General Alan Wilson, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 15-7205.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 17, 2015.
Decided: Nov. 20, 2015.
Donald W. Gay, Appellant Pro Se.
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Donald W. Gay seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as successive 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 Gay that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appelláte 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). Gay 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.