Jerry Galbreath v. Leroy Cartledge

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying for certificate of appealability Originating case number: 1:14-cv-00110-RMG Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999654340]. Mailed to: Galbreath. [15-6473]

Appeal: 15-6473

Doc: 7

Filed: 09/04/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6473

JERRY MARVIN GALBREATH,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
LEROY CARTLEDGE,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken.
Richard M. Gergel, District Judge.
(1:14-cv-00110-RMG)

Submitted:

August 31, 2015

Decided:

September 4, 2015

Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerry Marvin Galbreath, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III,
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6473

Doc: 7

Filed: 09/04/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Jerry Marvin Galbreath 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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) (2012).

magistrate

judge

The magistrate

judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Galbreath
that

failure

to

file

timely

and

specific

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,

see

Thomas v.

766

F.2d

Arn,

474

841,

845-46

U.S.

140

(4th

Cir.

(1985).

1985);

Galbreath

has

also
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