Wayne Williams-El v. Superior Court

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:10-cv-00173-NCT-LPA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999077827]. Mailed to: Wayne Williams-El. [12-7998]

Appeal: 12-7998

Doc: 7

Filed: 04/02/2013

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7998

WAYNE A. WILLIAMS-EL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
SUPERIOR COURT; UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT; 4TH CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS; UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT,
Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:10-cv-00173-NCT-LPA)

Submitted:

March 28, 2013

Decided:

April 2, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wayne A. Williams-El, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-7998

Doc: 7

Filed: 04/02/2013

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Wayne
court’s

order

petition.

A.

Williams-El

denying

relief

seeks

on

his

to
28

appeal

the

U.S.C.

district

§ 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.
2012).

The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied

and advised Williams-El that failure to file timely objections
to

this

recommendation

could

waive

appellate

review

of

a

to

a

district court order based upon the recommendation.
The
magistrate

timely

judge’s

filing

of

specific

recommendation

is

objections

necessary

to

preserve

appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when
the

parties

have

noncompliance.
Cir.

1985);

Williams-El

been

warned

of

the

consequences

of

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

has

also
waived

Thomas v.

Arn,

appellate

474

review

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
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

DISMISSED
2