Court Opinion

ID: 1002736
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:15:30.80271+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:35.725655
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 00-6894

WILLIAM R. SMITH,

                                              Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

PHOEBE JOHNSON, Warden; CHARLES M. CONDON,
Attorney General,

                                             Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.   David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CA-00-1329-3-18BC)

Submitted:   October 12, 2000              Decided:   October 20, 2000

Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William R. Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     William R. Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994

& Supp. 2000).   Smith’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 Smith 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, Smith 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).   Smith has waived appellate review by

failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.    We ac-

cordingly 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