Mayron Gilree v. Cecelia Reynold

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 0:14-cv-03686-RMG Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999646732]. Mailed to: appellant. [15-6767]

Appeal: 15-6767

Doc: 7

Filed: 08/25/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6767

MAYRON R. GILREE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
CECELIA REYNOLDS,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill.
Richard Mark Gergel, District
Judge. (0:14-cv-03686-RMG)

Submitted:

August 20, 2015

Decided:

August 25, 2015

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mayron R. Gilree, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Caroline M. Scrantom, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6767

Doc: 7

Filed: 08/25/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Mayron R. Gilree seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing as untimely 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)(B) (2012).

magistrate

judge

The magistrate

judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Gilree that
failure

to

file

timely,

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

766

F.2d

841,

845-46

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
review
notice.

by

failing

to

file

(4th

Cir.

1985);

also

Gilree has waived appellate

objections

after

receiving

proper

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