United States v. Leigh , 202 F. App'x 597 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •               Rehearing granted, September 12, 2007
    UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-6234
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    JOHN SAMUEL LEIGH,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
    District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater,
    District Judge. (3:00-cr-00057-WCB; 3:04-cv-00022-WCB)
    Submitted: September 28, 2006              Decided: October 5, 2006
    Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    John Samuel Leigh, Appellant Pro Se.      Thomas Oliver Mucklow,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    John Samuel Leigh 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 Leigh 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, Leigh 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).   Leigh 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: 06-6234

Citation Numbers: 202 F. App'x 597

Judges: Niemeyer, Per Curiam, Shedd, Traxler

Filed Date: 10/5/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023