Harley v. Warden, Broad River Correctional Institution

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7650 THOMAS HARLEY, Petitioner – Appellant, v. WARDEN, BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (3:10-cv-02296-RBH) Submitted: March 15, 2011 Decided: March 18, 2011 Before MOTZ and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Harley, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Thomas Harley seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2010). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Harley that failure to file timely and specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the 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). Harley has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. * Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. * The district court granted Harley one extension of time in which to file his objections, and did not abuse its discretion in denying a second extension. 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