ADAMS v. STATE OF S. CAROLINA, 06-7959 (4th Cir. 4-5-2007)

KENT ADAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 06-7959.United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.Submitted: March 29, 2007.
Decided: April 5, 2007.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (2:06-cv-01571-GRA)

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kent Adams, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Page 2


Kent Adams 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 Adams 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, Adams 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 of the consequences of non-compliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46
(4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Adams has waived appellate review by failing to timely file 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.


Page 1