Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stephen Bradley VENNIS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-07-15
Citations: 39 F. App'x 916
Docket Number: No. 02-6394
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stephen Bradley VENNIS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 39
Pages: 916–917

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stephen Bradley VENNIS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-6394.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 11, 2002.
Decided July 15, 2002.
Stephen Bradley Vennis, Appellant Pro Se. Sherry L. Muncy, Office of the United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Stephen Bradley Vennis seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2001) motion. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Vennis' notice of appeal was not timely filed.
The district court's order was entered on the docket on December 17, 2001. Vennis' notice of appeal was due sixty days after the entry of the district court's judgment, on February 15, 2002. Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1); Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5). This appeal period is "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections, 484 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960)). Vennis filed a notice of appeal on February 25, 2002. Because Vennis failed to file a timely notice of appeal, 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.
Even if Vennis' notice of appeal had been timely, dismissal would be appropriate. Vennis failed to timely object to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and has therefore waived this Court's review of the claims asserted in his § 2255 motion.