Kevin Mark Willson v. Director South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6939
KEVIN MARK WILLSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DIRECTOR SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE,
AND PARDON SERVICES,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Anderson. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (8:25-cv-09617-MGL)
Submitted: April 28, 2026 Decided: May 1, 2026
Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kevin Mark Willson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Kevin Mark Willson seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing with
prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate
judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended that the
petition be dismissed as untimely and advised Willson that failure to file timely, specific
objections to this recommendation would 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. Martin v. Duffy, 858
F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846-47 (4th Cir. 1985); see
also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154-55 (1985). Willson has forfeited appellate review
by failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation 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
* Willson has moved for the appointment of counsel on appeal. (ECF No. 14). We
deny that motion.

-- 2 of 2 --