Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ryan Reece LAMB, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-09-21
Citations: 109 F. App'x 586
Docket Number: No. 04-6677
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ryan Reece LAMB, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 109
Pages: 586–587

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ryan Reece LAMB, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-6677.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 16, 2004.
Decided Sept. 21, 2004.
Ryan Reece Lamb, Appellant pro se. Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Ryan Reece Lamb seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's report and recommendation to deny relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The magistrate judge's report and recommendation that Lamb seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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 Lamb's notice of appeal was construed as appealing the district court's final order, entered on January 22, 2004, dismissal would be appropriate. Despite being warned of the consequences of failing to file timely objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, Lamb failed to file timely objections and therefore has waived this court's review of the claims asserted in his § 2255 motion. 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).