Maxton v. United States ( 1998 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 98-6443
    THERON JOHNNY MAXTON,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge.
    (CA-97-3811-0-6-BD)
    Submitted:   May 28, 1998                 Decided:   June 10, 1998
    Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Theron Johnny Maxton, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Theron Johnny Maxton appeals the district court's order dis-
    missing without prejudice his petition filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
    (1994). Maxton's case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant
    to 
    28 U.S.C. § 636
    (b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recom-
    mended that relief be denied and advised Maxton that failure to
    file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate
    review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.
    Despite this warning, Maxton 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 generally Thomas
    v. Arn, 
    474 U.S. 140
     (1985). Maxton has waived appellate review by
    failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accord-
    ingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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.
    AFFIRMED
    *
    The district court erroneously stated in its order that
    objections were filed on September 29, 1997, but this was well
    before the magistrate judge issued his report and recommendation.
    No objections were filed after Maxton received proper notice.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 98-6443

Filed Date: 6/10/1998

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021