United States v. Anderson , 100 F. App'x 220 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6250
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MARVIN R. ANDERSON, a/k/a Ronnie Anderson,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Charles H. Haden II,
District Judge. (CR-99-239; CA-02-268-5)
Submitted: June 10, 2004 Decided: June 17, 2004
Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marvin R. Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. John Lanier File, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Marvin R. Anderson seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(2000). The district court referred the 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 Anderson that the
failure to file specific objections to this recommendation could
waive appellate review of a district court order based on the
recommendation. Despite this warning, Anderson failed to object in
specific terms 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 that failure to object will waive appellate review. See
Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Anderson has waived appellate
review by failing to file specific objections after receiving
proper notice. Accordingly, we deny Anderson’s motion for 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 -