UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6884
HERBERT BRAXTON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
GARY MAYNARD, Director, South Carolina
Department of Corrections; KENNETH D.
MCKELLAR, Warden; CHARLES CONDON, Attorney
General of the State of South Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-02-3626)
Submitted: August 14, 2003 Decided: August 22, 2003
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Herbert Braxton, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Herbert Braxton appeals 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 Braxton 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, Braxton 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). Braxton has waived appellate
review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. Because we have denied a certificate of appealability, we
also deny Braxton’s motion to extend the time in which to file a
final informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 22(a)(1)(B).
2
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
3