Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael D. CARTER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-08-22
Citations: 42 F. App'x 663
Docket Number: No. 02-6882
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael D. CARTER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 42
Pages: 663–664

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael D. CARTER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-6882.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 15, 2002.
Decided Aug. 22, 2002.
Michael D. Carter, Appellant Pro Se. Kasey Warner, Office of the United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Michael D. Carter appeals the district court's order dismissing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). Appellant's case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Appellant 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, Appellant failed to object to the magistrate judge's 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. See 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). Appellant has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. We accordingly 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.