United States v. Harith-Bey , 53 F. App'x 303 ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 02-4840
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    NA’IM N. HARITH-BEY,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca B. Smith, District
    Judge. (CR-02-89)
    Submitted:   December 10, 2002         Decided:     December 24, 2002
    Before WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Na’im N. Harith-Bey, Appellant Pro Se. Toby M. Jesson, Special
    Assistant United States Attorney, Fort Monroe, Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    A federal magistrate judge found Na’im N. Harith-Bey guilty of
    driving without a valid driver’s license on a military base, in
    violation of 
    Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-300
     (Michie 2002), as assimilated
    into federal jurisdiction pursuant to 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 7
    , 13 (2000).
    Harith-Bey timely appealed to the federal district court. However,
    when he failed to appear for oral argument, the district court
    dismissed the appeal for failure to prosecute.          Harith-Bey filed a
    timely appeal to this court, challenging the magistrate judge’s
    jurisdiction to try him for driving without a valid driver’s
    license.
    Because Harith-Bey does not challenge in his informal brief
    the grounds for the district court’s dismissal of his appeal, that
    issue is waived.    4th Cir. R. 34(b).       Furthermore, by failing to
    prosecute his appeal before the district court, we find that he has
    waived his right to appeal.      Cf. Wright v. Collins, 
    766 F.2d 841
    ,
    845-46 (4th Cir. 1985) (failure to file timely objections to
    magistrate    judge’s   report   and   recommendation    waives   appellate
    review of substance of that recommendation).             Consequently, we
    affirm. 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.
    AFFIRMED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-4840

Citation Numbers: 53 F. App'x 303

Judges: Wilkins, Niemeyer, Hamilton

Filed Date: 12/24/2002

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024