Case ID: f-appx_314/html/0617-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      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. Donald Steven CAGLE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-4955.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Feb. 26, 2009.
    Decided: March 3, 2009.
    M. Victoria Jayne, Hickory, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C.F. Shap-pert, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Donald Steven Cagle pled guilty pursuant to a conditional guilty plea to larceny of a firearm and possessing a stolen firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(j), 924(i) (2006). Cagle seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying Cagle’s motion to suppress certain evidence on the ground that his consent to the search that produced the evidence was not voluntary. The district court referred the issue to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). After a hearing, the magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Cagle that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of any district court order based on the recommendation. Despite this warning, Cagle 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 of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir.1985); see also Thomas v. Am, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Cagle has waived his right to argue that his consent to search was not voluntary. See United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621-22 (4th Cir.2007).

Therefore, we affirm his conviction and sentence. 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.

AFFIRMED.