Gregory Pencille v. Warden of Lee Correctional, No. 10-7759 (4th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7759 GREGORY PENCILLE, Petitioner Appellant, v. WARDEN OF LEE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent Appellee, and JON OZMINT, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (1:09-cv-01862-RMG) Submitted: July 21, 2011 Before NIEMEYER and Senior Circuit Judge. GREGORY, Decided: Circuit Judges, July 25, 2011 and HAMILTON, Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory Pencille, Appellant Pro Se. James Anthony Mabry, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Gregory Pencille seeks to appeal the district court s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and his motion for reconsideration. this case to a magistrate The district court referred judge pursuant § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2011). recommended that relief be denied to 28 U.S.C.A. The magistrate judge and advised Pencille that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The magistrate timely judge s filing of recommendation specific is objections necessary to to a preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have 1985); warned of the consequences of Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th noncompliance. Cir. been see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Pencille 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 3 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 4

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.