Williams v. Bazzle
Opinion
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, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (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 ap *162 pealability, 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
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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Frazier T. WILLIAMS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Richard BAZZLE, Warden, Perry Correctional Institution; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees
- Status
- Unpublished