United States v. John

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

United States v. John

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6163

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

LENNIE JOHN, a/k/a Uncle L,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CR-95-198, CA-97-768)

Submitted: August 27, 1998 Decided: September 11, 1998

Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lennie John, Appellant Pro Se. Philip Henry Wright, Monica Kaminski Schwartz, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying his

motion filed under

28 U.S.C.A. § 2255

(West 1994 & Supp. 1997).

Appellant’s case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that

relief be denied and advised Appellant that the failure to file

timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate

review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

Despite this warning, Appellant failed to object to the magistrate

judge’s recommendation.

The timely filing of 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

that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v.

Collins,

766 F.2d 841, 845-46

(4th Cir. 1985); United States v.

Schronce,

727 F.2d 91, 93-94

(4th Cir.), cert. denied,

467 U.S. 1208

(1984); see also Thomas v. Arn,

474 U.S. 140

(1985). Appellant

has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after

receiving proper notice. We accordingly deny a certificate of ap-

pealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

2

Reference

Status
Unpublished