Mayron Gilree v. Cecelia Reynolds, No. 15-6767 (4th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6767 MAYRON R. GILREE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. CECELIA REYNOLDS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (0:14-cv-03686-RMG) Submitted: August 20, 2015 Decided: August 25, 2015 Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mayron R. Gilree, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Caroline M. Scrantom, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Mayron R. Gilree seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The district court referred this case to a pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). magistrate judge The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Gilree 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, see 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). review notice. by failing to file (4th Cir. 1985); also Gilree has waived appellate objections after receiving proper 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.