Tedder v. Warden Leath Corr. Inst.

Full title: JACQUELINE TEDDER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN LEATH CORRECTIONAL…

Court: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jan 22, 2018

No. 17-7038 (4th Cir. Jan. 22, 2018)

Opinion

No. 17-7038

01-22-2018

JACQUELINE TEDDER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN LEATH CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent - Appellee, and LEATH CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent.

Jacqueline Tedder, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Attorney General, Sherrie Ann Butterbaugh, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM

UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:16-cv-02554-HMH) Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jacqueline Tedder, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Attorney General, Sherrie Ann Butterbaugh, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Jacqueline Tedder seeks to appeal the district court's order denying as untimely her 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 Tedder 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, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Tedder 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