George Lee Tomlin v. LEVERN COHEN, Warden Ridgeland Correctional Inst

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6589
GEORGE LEE TOMLIN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
LEVERN COHEN, Warden Ridgeland Correctional Inst,
Respondent - Appellee,
and
ALAN WILSON, Attorney General,
Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge.
(9:12-cv-03258-MGL)
Submitted: June 19, 2014 Decided: June 23, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
George Lee Tomlin, Appellant Pro Se. Tommy Evans, Jr., SOUTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE & PARDON SERVICE,
Columbia, South Carolina; Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant
Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
George Lee Tomlin, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal
the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 (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 Tomlin that failure to file timely and 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). Tomlin
has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after
receiving proper notice. His request for extensions of time do
not satisfy this requirement. 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 of 2 --