Richard Wayne Gay v. Warden, Fci Estill

Fourth Circuit

Richard Wayne Gay v. Warden, Fci Estill

98 F.3d 1334, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 40070, 1996 WL 570792

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedOctober 3, 1996

Docket96-6048

StatusUnpublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 98 F.3d 1334 (Richard Wayne Gay v. Warden, Fci Estill) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Richard Wayne Gay v. Warden, Fci Estill, 98 F.3d 1334, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 40070, 1996 WL 570792 (4th Cir. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

98 F.3d 1334

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Richard Wayne GAY, Petitioner--Appellant,
v.
WARDEN, FCI ESTILL, Respondent--Appellee.

No. 96-6048.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 20, 1996
Decided Oct. 3, 1996

Richard Wayne Gay, Appellant Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. 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 timely object to the magistrate judge's recommendation.

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 timely objections after receiving proper notice. We accordingly deny a certificate of appealability to the extent that one is required 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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

98 F.3d 1334

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.
Richard Wayne GAY, Petitioner--Appellant,
v.
WARDEN, FCI ESTILL, Respondent--Appellee.

No. 96-6048.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 20, 1996
Decided Oct. 3, 1996

Richard Wayne Gay, Appellant Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. 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 timely object to the magistrate judge's recommendation.

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 timely objections after receiving proper notice. We accordingly deny a certificate of appealability to the extent that one is required 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 F.3d 1334, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 40070, 1996 WL 570792, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richard-wayne-gay-v-warden-fci-estill-ca4-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack