United States v. Dominique , 55 F. App'x 174 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 02-7748
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    MARIE DOMINIQUE, a/k/a Mellisa Jones,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
    District Judge. (CR-95-53, CA-02-222-1)
    Submitted:   January 16, 2003             Decided:   January 27, 2003
    Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Marie Dominique, Appellant Pro Se. Timika Shafeek, Assistant United
    States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Marie Dominique seeks to appeal the district court’s order
    denying relief on her motion filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (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 Dominique 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, Dominique 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). Dominique 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-7748

Citation Numbers: 55 F. App'x 174

Judges: Williams, King, Gregory

Filed Date: 1/27/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024