Court Opinion

ID: 9375211
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-25 21:00:24.58129+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:56.804426
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7085      Doc: 8         Filed: 02/24/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-7085

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        KARI BUTLER,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (7:18-cr-00184-FL-4; 7:21-cv-00137-
        FL)

        Submitted: February 21, 2023                                  Decided: February 24, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Kari Butler, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7085      Doc: 8         Filed: 02/24/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Kari Butler seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C.

        § 2255 motion. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to

        28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and

        advised Butler that failure to file timely, specific objections to this recommendation could

        forfeit appellate review of a district court order based upon the 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 of the consequences of noncompliance. Martin v. Duffy, 858

        F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846-47 (4th Cir. 1985); see

        also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154-55 (1985). Butler has forfeited appellate review by

        failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional

        process.

                                                                                       DISMISSED

                                                     2