Crowell v. Angelone , 18 F. App'x 83 ( 2001 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-7123
ANTHONY CROWELL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia
Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District
Judge. (CA-01-153-2)
Submitted: August 23, 2001 Decided: September 5, 2001
Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony Crowell, Appellant Pro Se. Linwood Theodore Wells, Jr.,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Crowell seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994
& Supp. 2001). Crowell’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 Crowell that failure
to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appel-
late review of a district court order based upon the recom-
mendation. Despite this warning, Crowell failed to specifically
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 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). Crowell has waived appellate
review by failing to file specific objections after receiving
proper notice. We accordingly deny Crowell’s motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, 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 mate-
rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
2