Willie Singletary v. Warden Kershaw Correct. Inst.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:10-cv-01305-CMC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998661091]. Mailed to: Singletary. [11-6764]

Appeal: 11-6764

Document: 5

Date Filed: 08/23/2011

Page: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6764

WILLIE JAMES SINGLETARY,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
WARDEN, KERSHAW CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson.
Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (8:10-cv-01305-CMC)

Submitted:

August 18, 2011

Decided:

August 23, 2011

Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie James Singletary, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,
Deputy
Assistant
Attorney
General,
Alphonso
Simon,
Jr.,
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-6764

Document: 5

Date Filed: 08/23/2011

Page: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Willie James Singletary seeks to appeal the district
court’s

order

petition.

denying

relief

on

his

28

U.S.C.

§ 2254

(2006)

The district court referred this case to a magistrate

judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp.
2011).

The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied

and advised Singletary that failure to file timely objections to
this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district
court order based upon the recommendation.
The
magistrate

timely

judge’s

filing

of

recommendation

specific
is

objections

necessary

to

to

a

preserve

appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when
the

parties

have

noncompliance.
Cir.

1985);

Singletary

been

warned

of

the

consequences

of

Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th
also

Thomas v.

Arn,

waived

appellate

review

see
has

474

objections after receiving proper notice.

U.S.

by

140

failing

(1985).
to

file

Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
DISMISSED

2