Wayne Williams-El v. Superior Court, No. 12-7998 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7998 WAYNE A. WILLIAMS-EL, Petitioner - Appellant, v. SUPERIOR COURT; UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT; 4TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS; UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:10-cv-00173-NCT-LPA) Submitted: March 28, 2013 Decided: April 2, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wayne A. Williams-El, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Wayne court s order petition. A. Williams-El denying relief seeks on his to 28 appeal the U.S.C. 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 Williams-El that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a to a district court order based upon the recommendation. The magistrate timely judge s filing of specific recommendation is objections necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have noncompliance. Cir. 1985); Williams-El been warned of the consequences of Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th see has also waived Thomas v. Arn, appellate 474 review objections after receiving proper notice. U.S. by 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 this 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.