Chas Smith v. Bryan Stirling

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:15-cv-02533-HMH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999989437].. [16-6859]

Appeal: 16-6859

Doc: 12

Filed: 12/19/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6859

CHAS LAMOUS SMITH,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
BRYAN P. STIRLING, Director, SC Department of Corrections;
CECILIA REYNOLDS, Warden, Lee Correctional Institution;
SOUTH CAROLINA, STATE OF,
Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.
Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (2:15-cv-02533-HMH)

Submitted:

December 15, 2016

Decided:

December 19, 2016

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert L. Sirianni, Jr., BROWNSTONE, P.A., Winter Park, Florida,
for Appellant. Alphonso Simon, Jr., Assistant Attorney General,
Donald
John
Zelenka,
Senior
Assistant
Attorney
General,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6859

Doc: 12

Filed: 12/19/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Chas

Lamous

Smith

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 Smith 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

Smith 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