US v. Leigh, No. 06-6234 (4th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on September 13, 2007.
Download PDF
Rehearing granted, September 12, 2007 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6234 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOHN SAMUEL LEIGH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater, District Judge. (3:00-cr-00057-WCB; 3:04-cv-00022-WCB) Submitted: September 28, 2006 Decided: October 5, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Samuel Leigh, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: John Samuel Leigh seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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 Leigh 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, Leigh 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 of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Leigh has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific 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.
