Court Opinion

ID: 731537
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-04-17 16:18:16+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:32:24.852216
License: Public Domain

103 F.3d 119
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.James POLING, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.William C. DUNCIL, Warden, Huttonsville Correctional Center;Carl Legursky, Former Warden W.V.P.;  George Trent, WardenW.V.P./Mt. Olive correctional Complex;  Nicholas J. Hun,Commissioner of the Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 96-7252.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 21, 1996.Decided Dec. 6, 1996.

James Poling, Appellant Pro Se.
S.D.W.Va.
DISMISSED.
Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

1
Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214.   Appellant'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 Appellant 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, Appellant failed to object to the magistrate judge's recommendation.

2
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.  Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir.1985).  See generally Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).  Appellant has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.  We accordingly 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.

3
DISMISSED.