Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07562/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07562-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
T. McCoy
Appellee
Julio Cesar Nazarette-Garcia
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7562

JULIO CESAR NAZARETTE-GARCIA,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

T. MCCOY,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, 

Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:14-cv-00754-WO-LPA)

Submitted: February 23, 2016 Decided: February 26, 2016

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Julio Cesar Nazarette-Garcia, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe 

DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7562 Doc: 13 Filed: 02/26/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Julio Cesar Nazarette-Garcia seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)

petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate 

judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The 

magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised 

Nazarette-Garcia that failure to file timely objections to this 

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court 

order based upon the 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). Nazarette-Garcia has waived 

appellate review by failing to file objections. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7562 Doc: 13 Filed: 02/26/2016 Pg: 2 of 2