United States v. Willie Beale , 548 F. App'x 931 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7128
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIE DEROD BEALE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (4:10-cr-00049-FL-3; 4:12-cv-00176-FL)
Submitted: December 19, 2013 Decided: December 23, 2013
Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Willie Derod Beale, Butner, North Carolina, for Appellant. John
Howarth Bennett, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Greenville, North Carolina; Matthew Fesak, Rudolf A. Renfer,
Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina;
Shailika K. Shah, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Willie Derod Beale seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp. 2013) motion. The district court referred this case to a
magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West
2006 & Supp. 2013). The magistrate judge recommended that
relief be denied and advised Beale that the failure to file
timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate
review of a district court order based upon the 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 of the consequences of
noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th
Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Beale
has waived appellate review by failing to file objections, much
less timely and 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
2