US v. Anthony Carter, No. 09-6242 (4th Cir. 2009)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6242 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANTHONY CHARLES CARTER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:06-cr-00100-NCT-1; 1:07-cv00980-NCT-WWD) Submitted: May 28, 2009 Decided: June 8, 2009 Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Charles Assistant United for Appellee. Carter, Appellant Pro Se. Patrick Auld, States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Anthony Charles Carter seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2008) motion. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Carter that the failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order warning, based Carter upon failed the to recommendation. object to the Despite magistrate this judge s recommendation. The magistrate timely judge s filing of specific recommendation is objections necessary to to a preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have noncompliance. been warned of the consequences of Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Carter has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice. a certificate dispense of with contentions appealability oral are argument adequately and dismiss because presented 2 Accordingly, we deny the in the appeal. facts the and We legal materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3

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.