Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maurilio PRIETO-RUBI, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-01
Citations: 433 F. App'x 160
Docket Number: No. 11-6222
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maurilio PRIETO-RUBI, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 433
Pages: 160–161

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maurilio PRIETO-RUBI, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-6222.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 26, 2011.
Decided: June 1, 2011.
Maurilio Prieto-Rubi, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Mitchell Huber, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Maurilio Prieto-Rubi seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) 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.2010). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Prieto-Rubi 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). Prieto-Rubi has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny Prieto-Rubi's motion for 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.