United States v. Roach

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

SCOTTY ROACH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. Frank W. Bullock, Chief District Judge. (CR-93-122, CA-98-432)

No. 99-6082

Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Frank W. Bullock, Chief District Judge. (CR-93-205, CA-98-431)

Submitted: May 25, 1999 Decided: June 1, 1999

Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Scotty Roach, Appellant Pro Se. John Warren Stone, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

2 PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated cases, Scotty Roach seeks to appeal the

district court’s orders dismissing his motions filed under 28

U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998).* In both cases, Roach’s

motion was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that re-

lief be denied and advised Roach that failure to file timely ob-

jections to the recommendations could waive appellate review of a

district court order based upon the recommendations. Despite this

warning, Roach failed to file timely objections to the magistrate

judge’s recommendations.

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). See generally Thomas

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

failing to file timely objections after receiving proper notice.

We accordingly deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeals. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

* In addition, Roach appealed the district court’ts orders denying his motion for an extension of the time in which to object to the magistrate judge’s report and for the production of documents. We have reviewed the district court’s orders and find no abuse of discretion.

3 legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED