United States v. Kari Butler

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: February 24, 2023
• Docket: 22-7085
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7085 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/24/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-7085

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KARI BUTLER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (7:18-cr-00184-FL-4; 7:21-cv-00137- FL)

Submitted: February 21, 2023 Decided: February 24, 2023

Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kari Butler, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-7085 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/24/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Kari Butler seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 motion. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and

advised Butler that failure to file timely, specific objections to this recommendation could

forfeit appellate review of a district court order based upon the 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. Martin v. Duffy, 858

F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846-47 (4th Cir. 1985); see

also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154-55 (1985). Butler has forfeited appellate review by

failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED