Notice: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) States That Citation of Unpublished Dispositions is Disfavored Except for Establishing Res Judicata, Estoppel, or the Law of the Case and Requires Service of Copies of Cited Unpublished Dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.thomas Jerry Dudley, Petitioner-appellant, v. Ronald E. Jones, Superintendent; North Carolina Attorneygeneral, Respondents-appellees, 62 F.3d 1414 (4th Cir. 1995)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 62 F.3d 1414 (4th Cir. 1995)

Submitted July 25, 1995. Decided August 10, 1995


Thomas Jerry Dudley, appellant pro se. Richard Norwood League, Office of the Attorney General of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC, for appellees.

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:


Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. Appellant's case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1) (B) (1988). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Appellant that 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. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally 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 probable cause to appeal, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel. 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