Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-23-07163/USCOURTS-ca4-23-07163-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ian Andre Carr
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-7163

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

IAN ANDRE CARR,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at 

Martinsburg. Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief District Judge. (3:20-cr-00043-TSK-1;

3:22-cv-00207-TSK)

Submitted: February 27, 2024 Decided: March 1, 2024

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ian Andre Carr, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7163 Doc: 11 Filed: 03/01/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Ian Andre Carr seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and 

advised Carr that failure to file timely, specific 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. Martin v. Duffy, 858 

F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846-47 (4th Cir. 1985); see 

also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154-55 (1985). Carr has forfeited appellate review by 

failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation 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 this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7163 Doc: 11 Filed: 03/01/2024 Pg: 2 of 2