Terrence Bryan v. Robert Stevenson, III, No. 12-7619 (4th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7619 TERRENCE TERELL BRYAN, a/k/a T. Terell Bryan, Petitioner Appellant, v. SCDC WARDEN Officials, ROBERT STEVENSON, III, And/Or Responsible Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (5:11-cv-02500-TLW) Submitted: November 13, 2012 Decided: November 16, 2012 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terrence Terell Bryan, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Michael Pruitt, MCDONALD, PATRICK, TINSLEY, BAGGETT & POSTON, Greenwood, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Terrence court s order petition. Terell denying Bryan relief seeks on his to 28 appeal U.S.C. the district § 2254 (2006) The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Bryan 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 noncompliance. have been warned of the consequences of Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Bryan has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny Bryan s request for an extension of time, a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3

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.