Michael Day v. Warden Lieber Corr Inst

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Certificate of appealability denied. Originating case number: 5:14-cv-04318-BHH. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999873284]. Mailed to: Micheal Dwight Day. [16-6449]

Appeal: 16-6449

Doc: 5

Filed: 06/29/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6449

MICHEAL DWIGHT DAY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge.
(5:14-cv-04318-BHH)

Submitted:

June 23, 2016

Decided:

June 29, 2016

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Micheal Dwight Day, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 16-6449

Doc: 5

Filed: 06/29/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Micheal Dwight Day 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 magistrate judge pursuant
to

28

U.S.C.

§

636(b)(1)(B)

(2012).

The

magistrate

judge

recommended that relief be denied and advised Day that failure to
file

timely

appellate

objections

review

of

a

to

this

district

recommendation
court

order

could

based

waive

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,

766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140 (1985).

Day 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
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

2