Williams v. Angelone ( 1999 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 99-7120
    WESTLEY S. WILLIAMS,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia
    Department of Corrections,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
    trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.
    (CA-99-365-2)
    Submitted:   November 4, 1999          Decided:     November 10, 1999
    Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Westley S. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Ruth M. McKeaney, OFFICE OF
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Westley S. Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order
    dismissing his petition filed under 
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2254
     (West 1994
    & Supp. 1999).    Williams’ 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 Williams that failure
    to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive
    appellate review of a district court order based upon the recom-
    mendation.    Despite this warning, Williams 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); see also Thomas v.
    Arn, 
    474 U.S. 140
     (1985).   Williams 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. 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: 99-7120

Filed Date: 11/10/1999

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021