Court Opinion

ID: 994261
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 00:20:23.999189+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:00.088977
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 97-7148

PAUL NAGY,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

H. G. LAPPIN, Warden of the Federal Correc-
tional Institution, Butner, North Carolina,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge.
(CA-96-911-5-F)

Submitted:   February 12, 1998         Decided:     February 26, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paul Nagy, Appellant Pro Se. Fenita Talore Morris, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order dismiss-

ing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994). The magistrate

judge recommended that the motion be denied as moot and advised

Appellant that failure to file timely objections to this recommen-

dation could waive appellate review of a district court order based
upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Appellant 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. Wright v.
Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review

by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. We

accordingly 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