United States v. Irby ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 00-7269
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    WILLIAM JOHN IRBY,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis-
    trict of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District
    Judge. (CR-97-215, CA-99-1023-1)
    Submitted:   November 9, 2000          Decided:     November 15, 2000
    Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    William John Irby, Appellant Pro Se. Timika Shafeek, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    William John Irby appeals the district court’s order denying
    his motion filed under 
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
     (West Supp. 2000).
    Irby’s case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 636
    (b)(1)(B) (1994).    The magistrate judge recommended
    denying Irby’s § 2255 motion and dismissing the action. Along with
    the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, Irby received
    notice of the ten day objection period and that failure to file
    specific objections to the recommendation could preclude appellate
    review.   Despite this warning, Irby failed to file any objections.
    The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge’s
    recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the
    substance of that recommendation. See Wells v. Shriners Hosp., 
    109 F.3d 198
    , 201 (4th Cir. 1997).    See generally Thomas v. Arn, 
    474 U.S. 140
     (1985).   Irby waived appellate review by failing to file
    objections to the magistrate’s recommendation.     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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 00-7269

Filed Date: 11/15/2000

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021