Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-08092/USCOURTS-ca4-09-08092-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-8092

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

MARCUS DOMINIC BROOKS, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Robert E. Maxwell, 

Senior District Judge. (3:04-cr-00040-REM-JES-2; 3:07-cv-00170-

REM-JES) 

Submitted: January 19, 2010 Decided: January 28, 2010 

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Marcus Dominic Brooks, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Oliver Mucklow, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 09-8092 Doc: 7 Filed: 01/28/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Marcus Dominic Brooks seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2009) motion. The district court referred this case to a 

magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). 

The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and 

advised Brooks that the failure to file timely objections to 

this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district 

court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this 

warning, Brooks failed to file objections 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. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Brooks 

has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific 

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

Appeal: 09-8092 Doc: 7 Filed: 01/28/2010 Pg: 2 of 2