US v. Rafael Olvera, No. 16-7663 (4th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7663 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. RAFAEL GARCIA OLVERA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:13-cr-00191-CCE-1; 1:16-cv-00885-CCE-JLW; 1:16-cv-01024-CCE-JLW) Submitted: March 9, 2017 Decided: March 15, 2017 Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rafael Garcia Olvera, Appellant Pro Se. Randall Stuart Galyon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Robert Michael Hamilton, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Rafael Garcia Olvera seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Olvera that the failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the 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, see 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Cir. 1985); also Olvera has waived appellate review by failing to 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 this 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.