Watson v. Angelone ( 2002 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-7895
RICKY M. WATSON,
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. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.
(CA-01-13-2)
Submitted: February 14, 2002 Decided: February 27, 2002
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ricky M. Watson, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Ricky M. Watson seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994
& Supp. 2001). Watson’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 Watson that failure
to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appel-
late review of a district court order based upon the recom-
mendation. Despite this warning, Watson failed to object to the
magistrate judge’s recommendation; instead, he filed a notice of
appeal.*
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). Watson has waived appellate review by
failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. We
accordingly deny a certificate of appealability, deny Watson’s
motion for appointment of counsel, and dismiss the appeal. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
*
We have jurisdiction over the appeal because the district
court subsequently entered a final order. See Equipment Finance
Group, Inc. v. Traverse Computer Brokers, 973 F.2d 345, 347-48 (4th
Cir. 1992).
2
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3