Filed: Jun. 26, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6085 RONNIE W. WILSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN BUSH, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (0:17-cv-00461-JMC) Submitted: June 21, 2018 Decided: June 26, 2018 Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronnie W. Wilson, Appell
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6085 RONNIE W. WILSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN BUSH, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (0:17-cv-00461-JMC) Submitted: June 21, 2018 Decided: June 26, 2018 Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronnie W. Wilson, Appella..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-6085
RONNIE W. WILSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN BUSH,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
Hill. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (0:17-cv-00461-JMC)
Submitted: June 21, 2018 Decided: June 26, 2018
Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronnie W. Wilson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ronnie W. Wilson 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 Wilson 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,
766
F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140 (1985). Wilson
has waived appellate review by failing to timely 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