Case ID: f-appx_169/html/0795-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Gary Wayne TAYLOR, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 05-7685.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 23, 2006.
    Decided March 6, 2006.
    Gary Wayne Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Kasey Warner, United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Gary Wayne Taylor seeks to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, denying his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and denying his motion for a certificate of appealability. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Taylor that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Taylor failed to object to the magistrate judge’s 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 that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-6 (4th Cir.1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). We find Taylor waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice of the proposed denial of his § 2255 motion, and the district court properly denied a certificate of appealability.

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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED