United States v. Enigwe
United States v. Enigwe
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-6564
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
VINCENT ANYAOGU OKOROAFOR,
Defendant.
IFEDOO NOBLE ENIGWE,
Movant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CR-92-375)
Submitted: September 9, 1999 Decided: September 14, 1999
Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ifedoo Noble Enigwe, Appellant Pro Se. Marvin Jennings Caughman, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:
Ifedoo Noble Enigwe appeals the district court’s order denying
a motion for return of property. Enigwe’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
Enigwe that failure to file timely objections to this recommenda-
tion could waive appellate review of a district court order based
upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Enigwe 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); see also Thomas v.
Arn,
474 U.S. 140(1985). Thus, assuming without deciding that
Enigwe has standing to appeal and has timely filed a notice of
appeal, Enigwe has waived appellate review by failing to file
objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny the
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 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- Unpublished