R. Miller, Jr. v. Nena Walker-Staley

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cv-01959-RBH. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999953438]. Mailed to: Robert James Miller Jr.. [16-6711]

Appeal: 16-6711

Doc: 5

Filed: 10/24/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6711

R. JAMES MILLER, JR.,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
NENA WALKER-STALEY, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken.
R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(1:15-cv-01959-RBH)

Submitted:

October 11, 2016

Decided:

October 24, 2016

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert James Miller, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. James Anthony
Mabrey, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6711

Doc: 5

Filed: 10/24/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Robert
court’s

order

petition.
judge

James

Miller,

denying

Jr.,

relief

on

seeks
his

to
28

appeal
U.S.C.

the

district

§ 2254

(2012)

The district court referred this case to a magistrate

pursuant

to

28

U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B)

(2012).

The

magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised
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).

Cir.

1985);

also

Miller has waived appellate

review by failing to file objections after being provided proper
notice

at

his

address

of

record.

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