Notice: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) States That Citation of Unpublished Dispositions is Disfavored Except for Establishing Res Judicata, Estoppel, or the Law of the Case and Requires Service of Copies of Cited Unpublished Dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.united States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Ivan Taylor, A/k/a Carlos, Defendant-appellant, 106 F.3d 394 (4th Cir. 1997)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 106 F.3d 394 (4th Cir. 1997) Submitted Jan. 23, 1997. Decided Jan. 31, 1997

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-89-9, CA-94-1523-3-6BC)

Ivan Taylor, Appellant Pro Se.

Robert Claude Jendron, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:


Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. Appellant's case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1) (B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Appellant 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, Appellant failed to object to the magistrate judge's recommendation.

The timely filing of 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 that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 93-94 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1208 (1984); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.*  We accordingly 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

 *

To the extent that Appellant contends he did not receive a copy of the magistrate judge's report, the proper avenue for relief from the judgment is a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion in the district court