Chris Harris v. Warden Thompson , 918 F.2d 173 ( 1990 )

918 F.2d 173
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Chris HARRIS, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Warden THOMPSON, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 90-6642.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 29, 1990.
Decided Nov. 19, 1990.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, District Judge. (CA-89-529-R)

Chris Harris, appellant pro se.

Alan Katz, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Va., for appellee.

E.D.Va.

DISMISSED.

Before WIDENER, PHILLIPS and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Chris Harris seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing this 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 action. Appellant's action was referred to a magistrate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate recommended that relief be denied and advised appellant that the 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's recommendation.

2

This Court has held that the timely filing of objections to a magistrate's recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation where the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846 (4th Cir.1985) (quoting Carr v. Hutto, 737 F.2d 433, 434 (4th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1019 (1985)). See generally United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1208 (1984). Appellant has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. We accordingly deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal 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.

3

DISMISSED.

*

We also deny Harris' motions for an injunction, appointment of counsel, and envelopes