Case ID: f-appx_103/html/0728-01.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. Fausto RUIZ-VARGAS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 04-6027.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted June 18, 2004.
    Decided July 16, 2004.
    Fausto Ruiz-Vargas, Appellant pro se. Steven Hale Levin, Office of the United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

Fausto Ruiz-Vargas seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). 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 Ruiz-Vargas that failure to file timely objections to the recommendation would waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Ruiz-Vargas 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. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir.1985); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Ruiz-Vargas has waived appellate review by failing to file 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED