Michael McKnight v. South Carolina, State of, No. 16-7081 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7081 MICHAEL TYRELL MCKNIGHT, Petitioner - Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA, STATE OF, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (2:15-cv-03149-MBS) Submitted: November 22, 2016 Before DIAZ and Circuit Judge. THACKER, Circuit Decided: Judges, November 28, 2016 and DAVIS, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Tyrell McKnight, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael court’s order petition. judge Tyrell McKnight denying relief seeks on to appeal 28 U.S.C. his the district § 2254 (2012) The district court referred this case to a magistrate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised McKnight that failure to timely file specific 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 Thomas v. F.2d Arn, 474 841, 845-46 U.S. 140 (4th Cir. (1985). 1985); McKnight has also waived appellate review by failing to file specific 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 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.
