UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6079
GARY WILLIAMS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
WARDEN, Wallens Ridge State Prison,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 05-6270
GARY WILLIAMS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
WARDEN, Wallens Ridge State Prison,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (CA-03-448-7)
Submitted: May 20, 2005 Decided: June 15, 2005
Before WILLIAMS, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gary Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Gary Williams seeks to appeal two orders concerning his
28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. In No. 04-6079, Williams
challenges the district court’s order denying relief on his § 2254
petition. In No. 05-6270, Williams seeks to appeal the district
court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge
and finding that Williams failed to demonstrate excusable neglect
for filing his notice of appeal in No. 04-6079 outside the thirty-
day appeal period of Fed. R. App. P. 4(a).
In recommending that the district court find no excusable
neglect in No. 04-6079, the magistrate judge advised Williams that
failure to file timely objections could waive appellate review of
a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this
warning, Williams 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.
Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Williams has waived appellate
review in No. 05-6270 by failing to file objections after receiving
proper notice. We therefore deny a certificate of appealability
and dismiss the appeal in No. 05-6270 on the ground that Williams
- 3 -
waived appellate review of the district court’s order adopting the
magistrate judge’s recommendation and finding no excusable neglect
for Williams’ failure to file a timely notice of appeal in No. 04-
6079.
Because the district court found no excusable neglect and
hence did not extend the period for Williams to file a notice of
appeal in No. 04-6079, we find that his notice of appeal, filed
beyond the thirty-day appeal period of Fed. R. App. P. 4(a), was
untimely filed. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss No. 04-6079 as untimely filed. 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
- 4 -