Peterson v. Rushton

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7521 WILLIAM PETERSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. COLIE RUSHTON, Warden MCCI, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (0:07-cv-01640-HMH) Submitted: February 19, 2009 Decided: February 24, 2009 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Peterson, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William Peterson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Peterson 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, Peterson 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 of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Peterson has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific 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