Donald Gay v. State of South Carolina

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 9:15-cv-02134-CMC. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999703391]. Mailed to: Donald Gay. [15-7205]

Appeal: 15-7205

Doc: 5

Filed: 11/20/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7205

DONALD W. GAY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; LEE WARDEN CECELIA REYNOLDS; SCDC
DIRECTOR NFN STIRLING; ATTORNEY GENERAL ALAN WILSON,
Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort.
Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (9:15-cv-02134-CMC)

Submitted:

November 17, 2015

Decided:

November 20, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald W. Gay, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7205

Doc: 5

Filed: 11/20/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Donald W. Gay seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting

the

recommendation

of

the

magistrate

judge

and

dismissing as successive 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 Gay that
failure to file timely 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

(4th

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

by

failing

to

file

objections

Cir.

1985);

also

Gay has waived appellate
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