United States v. Taylor ( 1997 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6137
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
IVAN TAYLOR, a/k/a Carlos,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior Dis-
trict Judge. (CR-89-9, CA-94-1523-3-6BC)
Submitted: January 23, 1997 Decided: January 31, 1997
Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ivan Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Claude Jendron, Jr., As-
sistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his mo-
tion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism
and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110
Stat. 1214. Appellant'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 Appellant 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, Appellant failed to object to
the magistrate judge's recommendation.
The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge's recom-
mendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the sub-
stance 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.), cert. denied, 467 U.S.
1208 (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 accordingly deny a certificate of ap-
pealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
*
To the extent that Appellant contends he did not receive a
copy of the magistrate judge's report, the proper avenue for relief
from the judgment is a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion in the district
court.
2
the materials before the court and argument would not aid the deci-
sional process.
DISMISSED
3