Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eunice HUSBAND, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-10-25
Citations: 544 F. App'x 230
Docket Number: No. 13-7170
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eunice HUSBAND, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 544
Pages: 230–230

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eunice HUSBAND, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-7170.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 22, 2013.
Decided: Oct. 25, 2013.
Eunice Husband, Appellant Pro Se. David Earl Godwin, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia; Michael D. Stein, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eunice Husband seeks to appeal the denial of relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2013) motion. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp.2013). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Husband that the 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, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Husband has waived appellate review by failing to file 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.