Calvin Gaddy v. Warden of Lieber Correctional

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:15-cv-03706-JFA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999830102]. Mailed to: Gaddy. [16-6387]

Appeal: 16-6387

Doc: 6

Filed: 05/23/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6387

CALVIN LYNDALE GADDY, a/k/a Calvin L. Gaddy,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN OF LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
SOUTH CAROLINA,
Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson.
G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (8:15-cv-03706-JFA)

Submitted:

May 18, 2016

Decided:

May 23, 2016

Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Calvin Lyndale Gaddy, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6387

Doc: 6

Filed: 05/23/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Calvin Lyndale Gaddy 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)(B) (2012).

magistrate

judge

The magistrate

judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Gaddy 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

(4th

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

Cir.

1985);

also

Gaddy has 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