UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6584
MALIK ABDUL AL-SHABAZZ, a/k/a Willie L.
Furtick,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
GARY D. MAYNARD, Director, South Carolina
Department of Corrections; RICKIE HARRISON,
Warden, Kershaw Correctional Institution; JIM
HODGES, Governor, State of South Carolina;
CHARLES MOLONY CONDON, Attorney General, State
of South Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge.
(CA-02-1348-4-19BH)
Submitted: August 28, 2003 Decided: September 4, 2003
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Malik Abdul Al-Shabazz, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Creighton Waters,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).
2
PER CURIAM:
Malik Abdul Al-Shabazz, a/k/a Willie L. Furtick, 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 Al-Shabazz 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, Al-
Shabazz 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). Al-Shabazz 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 the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3