Court Opinion

ID: 1009404
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 19:55:31.879789+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:20.753729
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 02-7407

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

MUTAZ ABDEL MOHAMED,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District
Judge. (CR-97-188, CA-00-603-1)

Submitted:   December 19, 2002           Decided:   December 31, 2002

Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mutaz Abdel Mohamed, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

      Mutaz Abdel Mohamed seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000).

The   district   court   referred   this   case   to   a   magistrate   judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000).           The magistrate judge

recommended that relief be denied and advised Mohamed that the

failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could

waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the

recommendation.    Despite this warning, Mohamed failed to object to

the magistrate judge’s 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 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).        Mohamed has waived appellate

review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to

proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.             We also deny

Mohamed’s motion for appointment of counsel and his motion for

reconsideration of the clerk’s order deferring action on this

motion pending our review of the appeal.

                                     2
     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

                                3