US v. Wright, No. 05-7737 (4th Cir. 2006)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7737 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GLENN WRIGHT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph Robert Goodwin, District Judge. (CR-00-67; CA-05-372) Submitted: December 21, 2005 Decided: January 18, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Glenn Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Kasey Warner, United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Glenn Wright seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The district court referred this case to pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). a magistrate judge The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Wright 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, Wright 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). Wright 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 -

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.