Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Dwayne EARLY, a/k/a Dollar Rob, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-05-22
Citations: 521 F. App'x 182
Docket Number: No. 13-6046
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Dwayne EARLY, a/k/a Dollar Rob, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 521
Pages: 182–183

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Dwayne EARLY, a/k/a Dollar Rob, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-6046.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 8, 2013.
Decided: May 22, 2013.
Robert Dwayne Early, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Dwayne Early seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2012) 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.2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Early 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). Early 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.