US v. Robert Early, No. 13-6046 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6046 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROBERT DWAYNE EARLY, a/k/a Dollar Rob, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief District Judge. (7:08-cr-00041-GEC-RSB-3; 7:11-cv-80341-GECRSB) Submitted: May 8, 2013 Decided: May 22, 2013 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Dwayne Early, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robert court s order Dwayne Early denying seeks relief (West Supp. 2012) motion. on to appeal his 28 the district U.S.C.A. § 2255 The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Early that the failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The magistrate timely judge s filing of specific recommendation is objections necessary to to a preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have noncompliance. been Wright warned v. of Collins, the 766 consequences F.2d 841, of 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Early has waived appellate review by failing to file 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 before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
