United States v. Little

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: January 19, 1999
• Docket: 98-7235
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7235

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JAMES TERRY LITTLE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Sr., District Judge. (CR-94-49, CA-98-114-1)

Submitted: January 7, 1999 Decided: January 19, 1999

Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and ERVIN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Terry Little, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin H. White, Jr., As- sistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

James Terry Little appeals the district court’s order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998).

Little’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 Little 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, Little failed to 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. 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. 1984); see also Thomas v.

Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review by

failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. We ac-

cordingly deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. Little’s motion for judgment is denied. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-

ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED