Court Opinion

ID: 4389468
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-04-22 19:00:21.672729+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:38.593737
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 18-7472

BRYAN ERIC GRAY,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

ERIK A. HOOKS, North Carolina Department of Public Safety,

                    Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, District Judge. (1:18-cv-00832-LCB-LPA)

Submitted: April 18, 2019                                         Decided: April 22, 2019

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bryan Eric Gray, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

      Bryan Eric Gray 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 Gray 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 (1985). Gray 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

                                            2