Mosby v. Attorney General NC ( 2000 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6503
CHRISTOPHER MOSBY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA; G. L.
WOODARD,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District
Judge. (CA-99-834-1)
Submitted: July 27, 2000 Decided: August 4, 2000
Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher Mosby, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Mosby seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994
& Supp. 2000). Mosby’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 Mosby 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, Mosby 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). Mosby has waived appellate review by
failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. We ac-
cordingly deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the ap-
peal. 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