Timothy A. Derocher v. South Carolina Department of Corrections

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6426
TIMOTHY A. DEROCHER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;
ROBERT H. MAUNEY, Warden of Northside
Correctional Institution; HENRY MCMASTER,
Attorney General of South Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:05-cv-01027-RBH)
Submitted: June 22, 2006 Decided: July 3, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Timothy A. DeRocher, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

*While DeRocher ultimately filed objections, they were clearly
untimely.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Timothy A. DeRocher 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 DeRocher 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, DeRocher 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 noncompliance. Wright v. Collins,
766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140 (1985). DeRocher 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.

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
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

-- 3 of 3 --