Larry Williams v. Wayne McCabe, No. 11-7037 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Unpublished opinion after submission on briefs: Dismissed
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-7037 LARRY WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WAYNE C. MCCABE, Warden of Lieber Correctional Institution, Respondent - Appellee, and CHARLES T. WILLIAMS, BROOKS, III; BUBBER JENKINSON; CAROLYN F. Respondents. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (3:11-cv-00946-MBS) Submitted: December 20, 2011 Decided: December 23, 2011 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Larry Williams seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2011). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Williams 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 specific recommendation is objections necessary to to a preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have noncompliance. Cir. 1985); Williams warned of the consequences of Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th see has been also waived Thomas v. appellate Arn, 474 review by objections after receiving proper notice. U.S. 140 failing (1985). to file Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
