Case ID: f-appx_286/html/0001-01.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

Frank BOSTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, Lee Correctional Institution; South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 08-6209.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 26, 2008.
    Decided: July 1, 2008.
    Frank Boston, Appellant Pro Se. Erin Mary Farrell, John Eric Kaufmann, McKay, Cauthen, Settana & Stubley, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and "WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Frank Boston, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. Boston’s case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 686(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Boston 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, Boston failed to timely 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. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845—46 (4th Cir.1985). See generally Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Boston has waived appellate review by failing to file timely objections after receiving proper notice. We accordingly deny a certificate of ap-pealability 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.