US v. Michael Isley, No. 08-7712 (4th Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7712 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL WAYNE ISLEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (1:05-cr-00216-NCT-2; 1:07-cv-00547-NCT-PTS) Submitted: December 11, 2008 Decided: December 18, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Wayne Isley, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael court s motion. order Wayne denying Isley relief seeks on his to appeal 28 the U.S.C. district § 2255 (2000) judge The district court referred this case to a magistrate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Isley 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, Isley failed to object to the magistrate judge s recommendation. The magistrate timely judge s filing of recommendation specific is objections 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 (1985). Isley has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny his motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.