Court Opinion

ID: 687930
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-04-17 03:43:04+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:33:57.633562
License: Public Domain

46 F.3d 1124
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.William Martin Mcgurgan JONES, Petitioner Appellant,v.James S. GILMORE, III, Attorney General of Virginia;Darrell V. Mcgraw, Attorney General of WestVirginia, Respondents Appellees.William Martin Mcgurgan JONES, Petitioner Appellant,v.James S. GILMORE, III, Attorney General of Virginia;Darrell V. Mcgraw, Attorney General of WestVirginia, Respondents Appellees.
Nos. 94-6900, 94-6952.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted:  December 13, 1994Decided:  January 12, 1995.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.  Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge.  (CA-93-1042-2)
William Martin McGurgan Jones, Appellant Pro Se.  Linwood Theodore Wells, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, VA;  Stephen Raymond Van Camp, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, WV, for Appellees.
E.D.Va.
DISMISSED.
Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:

1
Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 (1988) petition.  Appellant's case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(b)(1)(B) (1988).  The magistrate judge recommended that Respondents' motion to dismiss be granted and that the petition 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 certificates of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeals.*  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

*
 Appellant's pending motion to prevent the warden of his facility from taking possession of his transcripts in this matter and motion for appointment of counsel are denied as moot