UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6167
FELIPE TRUJILLO,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JOHN PATE, Warden, Allendale Correctional Institution,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(2:14-cv-00361-TMC)
Submitted: April 16, 2015 Decided: April 21, 2015
Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Felipe Trujillo, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Assistant
Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Felipe Trujillo seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. * The
district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge
recommended that relief be denied and advised Trujillo that
failure to file timely 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). Trujillo has waived
appellate review by failing to timely file objections after
receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny Trujillo’s motion
for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
*
To the extent that Trujillo also seeks to appeal the
district court’s denial of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion, we
lack jurisdiction to consider that order because he did not file
a notice of appeal until after the appeal period expired. See
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), (a)(4)(B)(ii); Bowles v. Russell,
551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).
2
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3