UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-7054

JERRY L. SCANTLING, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent - Appellee, and STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Sherri A. Lydon, District Judge. (6:19-cv-00506-SAL)

Submitted: September 23, 2021 Decided: October 1, 2021

Before AGEE and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerry L. Scantling, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Jerry L. Scantling seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Scantling that failure to file timely, 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. Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846-47 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154-55 (1985). Although Scantling received proper notice and filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, he has waived appellate review because the objections were not specific to the particularized legal recommendations made by the magistrate judge. See Martin, 858 F.3d at 245 (holding that, “to preserve for appeal an issue in a magistrate judge’s report, a party must object to the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the objection” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. *

* To the extent Scantling argued in his objections that the vagueness of his complaint was due to his pro se status, he does not challenge on appeal the district court’s determination that he does not have a constitutional right to counsel in postconviction (Continued) 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

proceedings. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (limiting appellate review to issues raised in informal brief).