Court Opinion

ID: 999162
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:21:50.315781+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:10.775437
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 99-6614

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

OMAR ABDULLA ALI,

                                             Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (CR-95-206-2, CA-98-981-1)

Submitted:   July 8, 1999                   Decided:   July 16, 1999

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Omar Abdulla Ali, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Omar Abdulla Ali appeals the district court’s order dismissing

his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999) motion.      Ali’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 Ali that failure to file timely objections to this recom-

mendation could waive appellate review of a district court order

based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Ali 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). Appellant has waived appellate review by

failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.    Accord-

ingly, 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