Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas JERECKI, a/k/a Tommy Jerecki, a/k/a Thomas Robert Jerecki, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-02-26
Citations: 30 F. App'x 97
Docket Number: No. 01-7855
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas JERECKI, a/k/a Tommy Jerecki, a/k/a Thomas Robert Jerecki, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 30
Pages: 97–97

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas JERECKI, a/k/a Tommy Jerecki, a/k/a Thomas Robert Jerecki, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 01-7855.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 14, 2002.
Decided Feb. 26, 2002.
Thomas Jerecki, pro se. Michael Lee Keller, Office of the United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Thomas Jerecki seeks to appeal the district court's judgment order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2001). Jerecki's case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Jerecki that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Jerecki failed to object to the magistrate judge's recommendation. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's findings and recommendation.
The timely filing of 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 that failure to object will waive appellate review. 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). Jerecki has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny Jerecki's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We also 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.