United States v. Stallings , 239 F. App'x 788 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-6954
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    NALONE STALLINGS,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
    District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr.,
    District Judge. (2:04-cr-00176; 2:06-cv-00845)
    Submitted: August 30, 2007              Decided:     September 11, 2007
    Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Nalone Stallings, Appellant Pro Se. Monica Lynn Dillon, OFFICE OF
    THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Nalone Stallings seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000) motion.    The
    district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to
    
    28 U.S.C. § 636
    (b)(1)(B) (2000).   The magistrate judge recommended
    that relief be denied and advised Stallings 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, Stallings failed to object to the magistrate
    judge’s recommendation.
    The timely filing of specific 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 of the consequences of noncompliance.    Wright v. Collins,
    
    766 F.2d 841
    , 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 
    474 U.S. 140
     (1985).   Stallings has waived appellate review by failing
    to timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice.
    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: 07-6954

Citation Numbers: 239 F. App'x 788

Judges: King, Michael, Per Curiam, Shedd

Filed Date: 9/11/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023