United States v. Coleman , 51 F. App'x 442 ( 2002 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7236
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SYLVESTER BLAINE COLEMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater,
District Judge. (CR-98-14, CA-01-51-3)
Submitted: November 21, 2002 Decided: December 2, 2002
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sylvester Blaine Coleman, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Oliver Mucklow,
Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Sylvester Coleman seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his motions filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000),
and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000). The district court referred this
case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)
(2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and
advised Coleman 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, and
although he was given an extension of time to do so, Coleman failed
to object to the magistrate judge’s 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 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). Coleman has waived appellate
review by failing to file 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 the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2