United States v. Lamb
United States v. Lamb
Opinion
Ryan Reece Lamb seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to deny relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation that Lamb seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. * 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
Even if Lamb’s notice of appeal was construed as appealing the district court’s final order, entered on January 22, 2004, dismissal would be appropriate. Despite being warned of the consequences of failing to file timely objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, Lamb failed to file timely objections and therefore has waived this court’s review of the claims asserted in his § 2255 motion. See Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.