UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7165
DOUGLAS A. TURNER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
COLLIE RUSHTON, Warden, McCormick Correctional
Institution; HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General
for South Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.
(CA-03-4124-24BH-4)
Submitted: December 9, 2004 Decided: December 15, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Douglas A. Turner, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).
PER CURIAM:
Douglas A. Turner seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)
for failure to prosecute his claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
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 Turner 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, Turner 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). Turner 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 -