United States v. McFadden ( 1996 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7383
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOHN HENRY MCFADDEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. C. Weston Houck, Chief District
Judge. (CR-90-430, CA-92-1960-3-2-BC)
Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 22, 1996
Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Henry McFadden, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Gordon Baker, Assis-
tant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order dismiss-
ing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) petition. Appellant's case was
referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)
(1988). 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, Appel-
lant 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. Wright v.
Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review
by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. We
accordingly 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 deci-
sional process.
DISMISSED
2