Chas Lamous Smith v. BRYAN P. STIRLING, Director, SC Department of Corrections

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6859
CHAS LAMOUS SMITH,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
BRYAN P. STIRLING, Director, SC Department of Corrections;
CECILIA REYNOLDS, Warden, Lee Correctional Institution;
SOUTH CAROLINA, STATE OF,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (2:15-cv-02533-HMH)
Submitted: December 15, 2016 Decided: December 19, 2016
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert L. Sirianni, Jr., BROWNSTONE, P.A., Winter Park, Florida,
for Appellant. Alphonso Simon, Jr., Assistant Attorney General,
Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Chas Lamous Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on 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 Smith 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). Smith 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
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 2 of 2 --