Court Opinion

ID: 1009693
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:00:06.227661+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:33:42.599921
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 02-7848

THOMAS HARLEY,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

CHARLES CONDON, Attorney General of the State
of South Carolina; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

                                            Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (CA-
02-1341)

Submitted:   January 30, 2003             Decided:   February 5, 2003

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas Harley, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

     Thomas Harley seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).       The

district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000).       The magistrate judge recommended

that relief be denied and advised Harley that failure to file

timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate

review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

Despite this warning, Harley failed to object to the magistrate

judge’s 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 that failure to object will waive appellate review.         See

Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).        Harley 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 also deny Harley’s motion asking the court to consider

documents as an amended complaint.

     We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                             DISMISSED

                                   2