Court Opinion

ID: 1008277
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 19:37:29.619361+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:33.357837
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 02-6812

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

TONY DARNELL KINTON,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (CR-98-304, CA-01-636-1)

Submitted:   July 18, 2002                 Decided:    July 29, 2002

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tony Darnell Kinton, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Alexander Weinman,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

     Tony Darnell Kinton appeals the district court’s judgment

denying his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001) petition. Kinton’s

case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief

be denied and advised Kinton 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,

Kinton 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 (1985).     Kinton 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 the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                DISMISSED

                                   2