Court Opinion

ID: 1024920
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 06:41:11.912888+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:27:35.133349
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 07-7510

RONNIE COLCLOUGH,

                                              Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

SUMTER LEE REGIONAL DETENTION CENTER,

                                               Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (6:07-cv-02910-HMH)

Submitted:   January 17, 2008              Decided:   January 28, 2008

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronnie Colclough, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          Ronnie Colclough seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition.   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 Colclough 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, Colclough 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 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).   Colclough has waived appellate review by failing

to timely file specific 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

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                         DISMISSED

                               - 2 -