Coleman v. Chester

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-6688
JESSE A. COLEMAN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
DAVID CHESTER,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge.
(CA-97-929-5-F)
Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 24, 1998
Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jesse A. Coleman, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismiss-
ing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.
1998). Appellant’s case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recom-
mended that relief be denied and advised Appellant that failure to
file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate
review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.
Despite this warning, Appellant failed to object to the magistrate
judge’s recommendation.
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 generally Thomas
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review
by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. We
accordingly 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