UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7959
WILLIAM FRANK TATE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
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 Greenville. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CA-04-410-6)
Submitted: January 27, 2005 Decided: February 7, 2005
Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Frank Tate, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief
Deputy Attorney General, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
William Frank Tate 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 Tate 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, Tate failed to timely 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). Tate has waived appellate
review by failing to file timely 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 -