US v. Mark Rollyson, No. 09-7249 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7249 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARK ALLEN ROLLYSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (3:07-cr-00098-JPB-JES-1; 3:08-cv-00143JPB-JES) Submitted: October 29, 2009 Decided: November 10, 2009 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark Allen Rollyson, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Mark Allen Rollyson seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) 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 Rollyson that the failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order warning, based Rollyson upon failed the recommendation. to Despite specifically object specific objections this to the magistrate judge s recommendation. The magistrate timely judge s filing of recommendation is necessary to to a preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties noncompliance. have 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, 150 (1985). Rollyson 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 also deny Rollyson s motion to appoint counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 2 presented in the 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.
