United States v. Little ( 1999 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-7235
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAMES TERRY LITTLE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Sr.,
District Judge. (CR-94-49, CA-98-114-1)
Submitted: January 7, 1999 Decided: January 19, 1999
Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and ERVIN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Terry Little, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin H. White, Jr., As-
sistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
James Terry Little appeals the district court’s order denying
his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998).
Little’s 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 Little 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, Little 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); United States v.
Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 93-94 (4th Cir. 1984); see also Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant 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. Little’s motion for judgment is denied. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-
ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2