Christopher Lane v. Wayne McCabe

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 0:12-cv-00912-RBH. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999117493]. Mailed to: Christopher Lane. [13-6404]

Appeal: 13-6404

Doc: 5

Filed: 05/29/2013

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6404

CHRISTOPHER LANE,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
WAYNE MCCABE,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(0:12-cv-00912-RBH)

Submitted:

May 23, 2013

Before MOTZ and
Circuit Judge.

AGEE,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

May 29, 2013

HAMILTON,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Lane, Appellant Pro Se. Alphonso Simon, Jr.,
Assistant
Attorney
General,
Donald
John
Zelenka,
Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-6404

Doc: 5

Filed: 05/29/2013

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Christopher Lane 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

advised

Lane

judge

that

recommended

failure

to

that

file

relief

timely

be

denied

objections

to

and
this

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court
order based upon the recommendation.
The
magistrate

timely

judge’s

filing

of

specific

recommendation

is

objections

necessary

to

to

a

preserve

appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when
the

parties

have

noncompliance.

been

warned

of

the

consequences

of

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

Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).

Lane

has waived appellate review by failing to file 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
before

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

DISMISSED
2