Court Opinion

ID: 582865
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2011-08-23 10:17:27+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:46.457868
License: Public Domain

963 F.2d 367
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.Keith Allan CASTLE, Petitioner-Appellant,v.J. T. HADDEN, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 92-6255.
United States Court of Appeals,Fourth Circuit.
Submitted:  May 4, 1992Decided:  May 22, 1992

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.  James C. Fox, Chief District Judge.  (CA-91-562-F)
Keith Allan Castle, Appellant Pro Se.
Linda Kaye Teal, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
E.D.N.C.
AFFIRMED.
Before HALL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
OPINION
PER CURIAM:

1
Keith Allan Castle appeals the district court's order dismissing this 42 U.S.C. § 2241 (1988) action.  Appellant's action was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1988).  The magistrate judge recommended that the petition for relief be denied and advised Appellant that the 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
This Court has held that the timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge's recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation where 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);  United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 93-94 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1208 (1984);  see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).  Appellant has waived appellate review by failing to file timely objections after receiving proper notice.  We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court.  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.

AFFIRMED