UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6857
FRAZIER T. WILLIAMS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RICHARD BAZZLE, Warden, Perry Correctional
Institution; HENRY DARGAN MCMASTER, Attorney
General for South Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-04-21930-2-GRA)
Submitted: October 21, 2005 Decided: November 2, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frazier T. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief
Deputy Attorney General, John William McIntosh, Assistant Attorney
General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Frazier T. Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. 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 Williams 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, 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
by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.
Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a
certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal.*
*
We also find that Williams has failed to demonstrate any
error in the district court’s finding that his § 2254 petition is
untimely, which independently precludes issuance of a certificate
of appealability. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38
(2003); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).
- 2 -
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 -