Williams v. Johnson

66 F. App'x 520
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Williams v. Johnson. Read the opinion of the Court — 72 F. App'x 1
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided June 18, 2003·No. 03-6516·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Richard Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The district court referred this ease to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Williams that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation *521 could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Williams failed to object to the magistrate judge’s 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 that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir.1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 485 (1985). Williams 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Williams v. Johnson, 66 F. App'x 520 (4th Cir. 2003).

66 F. App'x 520 (Williams v. Johnson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related