Townsend v. Angelone , 49 F. App'x 478 ( 2002 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7164
ANTONIO JOSE TOWNSEND,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director Virginia
Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District
Judge. (CA-01-637-2)
Submitted: October 24, 2002 Decided: October 31, 2002
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Antonio Jose Townsend, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey,
III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Antonio Jose Townsend seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).
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 Townsend that failure
to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive
appellate review of a district court order based upon the
recommendation. Despite this warning, Townsend failed to file
specific objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.
Instead, he filed a general notice of appeal.
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). Townsend has waived appellate
review by failing to 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