Mack Neil Myers v. South Carolina Department of Corrections

` UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7138
MACK NEIL MYERS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;
HENRY DARGAN MCMASTER, Attorney General of the
State of South Carolina; LIEBER CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTION, Warden,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (9:06-01120-HMH)
Submitted: October 31, 2006 Decided: November 7, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mack Neil Myers, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Mack Neil Myers 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 Myers that the failure to file
timely, specific objections to this recommendation could waive
appellate review of a district court order based upon the
recommendation. Despite this warning, Myers failed to specifically
object to the dispositive portion of 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). Myers has waived appellate review by failing to
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.
DISMISSED

-- 2 of 2 --