Terrence Terell Bryan, a/k/a T. Terell Bryan v. SCDC WARDEN ROBERT STEVENSON, III, And/Or Responsible Officials

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7619
TERRENCE TERELL BRYAN, a/k/a T. Terell Bryan,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
SCDC WARDEN ROBERT STEVENSON, III, And/Or Responsible
Officials,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(5:11-cv-02500-TLW)
Submitted: November 13, 2012 Decided: November 16, 2012
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Terrence Terell Bryan, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Michael Pruitt,
MCDONALD, PATRICK, TINSLEY, BAGGETT & POSTON, Greenwood, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Terrence Terell Bryan seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)
petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate
judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp.
2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied
and advised Bryan 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). Bryan
has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after
receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny Bryan’s request
for an extension of time, 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

-- 2 of 3 --

3
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --