Court Opinion

ID: 1025785
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 06:55:50.208153+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:28:19.102985
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 08-6263

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                  Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

RUSSELL WRIGHT,

                  Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
District Judge. (1:05-cv-00700-NCT-PTS; 1:97-cr-00231-NCT-2; 1:97-
cr-00226-NCT-2)

Submitted:   May 22, 2008                    Decided:   May 29, 2008

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Russell Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          Russell Wright seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and

denying his motion for certificate of appealability.   The district

court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000).     The magistrate judge recommended

that relief be denied and advised Wright 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, Wright failed to object to the magistrate

judge’s 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).   Wright has waived appellate review by failing to

timely file specific 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

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                         DISMISSED

                                - 2 -