Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Na'im N. HARITH-BEY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-12-24
Citations: 53 F. App'x 303
Docket Number: No. 02-4840
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Na’im N. HARITH-BEY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 53
Pages: 303–304

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Na’im N. HARITH-BEY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-4840.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 10, 2002.
Decided Dec. 24, 2002.
Na’im N. Harith-Bey, Appellant Pro Se. Toby M. Jesson, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Fort Monroe, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
A federal magistrate judge found Na'im N. Harith-Bey guilty of driving without a valid driver's license on a military base, in violation of Va.Code Ann. § 46.2-300 (Michie 2002), as assimilated into federal jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 7, 13 (2000). Harith-Bey timely appealed to the federal district court. However, when he failed to appear for oral argument, the district court dismissed the appeal for failure to prosecute. Harith-Bey filed a timely appeal to this court, challenging the magistrate judge's jurisdiction to try him for driving without a valid driver's license.
Because Harith-Bey does not challenge in his informal brief the grounds for the district court's dismissal of his appeal, that issue is waived. 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Furthermore, by failing to prosecute his appeal before the district court, we find that he has waived his right to appeal. Cf. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir.1985) (failure to file timely objections to magistrate judge's report and recommendation waives appellate review of substance of that recommendation). Consequently, we affirm. 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.
AFFIRMED.