Teresa Miller v. State of West Virginia, No. 16-6995 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6995 TERESA MILLER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (2:16-cv-00007-JPB-RWT) Submitted: November 17, 2016 Before GREGORY, Judges. Chief Judge, Decided: and MOTZ and November 22, 2016 TRAXLER, Circuit Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Teresa Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Young, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Teresa Miller seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. recommended § 636(b)(1)(B) that relief (2012). be denied The and magistrate advised judge Miller that failure to file timely 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 by notice. additional failing to file Accordingly, evidence we and (4th for 1985); also Miller has waived appellate objections deny Cir. after Miller’s disclosure receiving motions of the to proper admit presentence report, 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.
