Court Opinion

ID: 4164468
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-04-28 19:04:03.916952+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:17.347811
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 16-7729

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

DEMETRIUS HILL,

                    Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:12-cr-00288-WO-1; 1:16-
cv-00515-WO-LPA)

Submitted: April 25, 2017                                         Decided: April 28, 2017

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Demetrius Hill, Appellant Pro Se. John Mcrae Alsup, Terry Michael Meinecke, Assistant
United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

      Demetrius Hill seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that

relief be denied and advised Hill that the failure to file timely 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. Wright v. Collins, 766
F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Hill has

waived appellate review by failing to file objections 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