Case ID: f-appx_57/html/0201-01.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

Kenneth Ray HILL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 02-7882.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted March 6, 2003.
    Decided March 14, 2003.
    Kenneth Ray Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Linwood Theodore Wells, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Kenneth Ray Hill seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. 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 denying relief, and advised Hill that his failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Hill 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. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir.1985). Hill has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we grant Hill’s motion to amend his informal brief, deny Hill’s motions for appointed counsel and for the production of transcripts at Government expense, 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.