UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7333
NIAKAL JENKINS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
WILLIE EAGLETON, Warden of Evans Correctional
Institution; HENRY DARGAN MCMASTER, a/k/a
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 Anderson. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(CA-02-2317-25BI)
Submitted: November 19, 2003 Decided: December 4, 2003
Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Niakal Jenkins, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Niakal Jenkins 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 Jenkins 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, Jenkins 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). Jenkins 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
2