Henry Green v. CECILIA REYNOLDS, Warden

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7161
HENRY GREEN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
CECILIA REYNOLDS, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Richard M. Gergel, District Judge.
(5:15-cv-04867-RMG)
Submitted: November 22, 2016 Decided: November 28, 2016
Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Henry Green, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant
Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Henry Green seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing as untimely 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 Green 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). Green has waived appellate review by failing to
timely file objections after receiving proper notice. Moreover,
the district court’s subsequent consideration of the objections
“cannot cure the failure to properly and timely object.” Massey v.
Ojaniit, 759 F.3d 343, 352 (4th Cir. 2014). 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

-- 2 of 2 --