US v. Perez-Fulgencio, No. 06-6519 (4th Cir. 2006)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6519 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CARLOS ALBERTO PEREZ-FULGENCIO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (5:01-cr-30058-FFF; 7:05-cv-00235-sgw) Submitted: June 16, 2006 Decided: June 26, 2006 Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carlos Alberto Perez-Fulgencio, Appellant Pro Se. Fitzgerald, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. Ray B. ATTORNEY, Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Carlos Alberto Perez-Fulgencio 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 magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). to a The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Perez-Fulgencio that the failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Fulgencio failed to object to Despite this warning, Perezthe 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). Perez-Fulgencio 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.