Hill v. Angelone ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7882
KENNETH RAY HILL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RONALD ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia
Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-02-427-2)
Submitted: March 6, 2003 Decided: March 14, 2003
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kenneth Ray Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Linwood Theodore Wells, Jr.,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Ray Hill seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. 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 denying
relief, and advised Hill that his failure to file timely objections
to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district
court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning,
Hill 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. Thomas
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841,
845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). Hill has waived appellate review by failing
to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we
grant Hill’s motion to amend his informal brief, deny Hill’s
motions for appointed counsel and for the production of transcripts
at Government expense, 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