Harrell v. Angelone ( 1999 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 99-7159
    DAVID HARRELL,
    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-98-872-2)
    Submitted:   December 16, 1999         Decided:     December 21, 1999
    Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir-
    cuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    David Harrell, Appellant Pro Se. Rick Randall Linker, 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    David Harrell seeks to appeal the district court’s order dis-
    missing his petition filed under 
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2254
     (West 1994 &
    Supp. 1999).   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
    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
    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). 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. 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 99-7159

Filed Date: 12/21/1999

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014