UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7175
GARRIS E. AMERSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN STEVENSON, Broad River Correctional Institution,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(4:11-cv-03266-DCN)
Submitted: November 30, 2012 Decided: January 9, 2013
Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Garris E. Amerson, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Alphonso Simon, Jr.,
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Garris E. Amerson seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. 1
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 Amerson 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, Amerson failed to timely
object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. 2
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).
Amerson has waived appellate review by failing to timely file
1
To the extent that Amerson also seeks to appeal the
district court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration, we
conclude that Amerson failed to note his appeal as required by
Fed. R. App. P. 3.
2
Amerson’s informal brief fails to argue that his
objections were timely. This court will address only issues
properly raised in the informal brief. 4th Cir. R. 34(b).
2
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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3