Court Opinion

ID: 9947146
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-02 21:00:45.680114+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:53.646595
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7163      Doc: 11          Filed: 03/01/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-7163

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        IAN ANDRE CARR,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Martinsburg.    Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief District Judge.            (3:20-cr-00043-TSK-1;
        3:22-cv-00207-TSK)

        Submitted: February 27, 2024                                      Decided: March 1, 2024

        Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Ian Andre Carr, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-7163         Doc: 11      Filed: 03/01/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Ian Andre Carr seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 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 Carr that failure to file timely, specific objections to this recommendation could

        waive 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). Carr 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