Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06005/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06005-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Benjamin Luevano Beltran
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6005

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BENJAMIN LUEVANO BELTRAN, a/k/a Benji Beltran,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, District 

Judge. (6:07-cr-00012-nkm-mfu-1; 6:08-cv-80119-nkm-mfu)

Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 27, 2010

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Benjamin Luevano Beltran, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray 

Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-6005 Doc: 7 Filed: 04/27/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Benjamin Luevano Beltran 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 Beltran 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, Beltran 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. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). 

Beltran 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 

Appeal: 10-6005 Doc: 7 Filed: 04/27/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 10-6005 Doc: 7 Filed: 04/27/2010 Pg: 3 of 3