US v. Timothy Thorne, No. 18-6478 (4th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6478 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TIMOTHY JAMES THORNE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Parkersburg. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (6:13-cr-00148-1; 2:15-cv16027) Submitted: October 18, 2018 Decided: October 23, 2018 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, KEENAN, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timothy James Thorne, Appellant Pro Se. Joshua Clarke Hanks, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Timothy James Thorne seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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 Thorne that the failure to file timely objections to this recommendation might waive appellate review of a district court order based on the recommendation. Despite this warning, and two extensions to address the delinquency, Thorne failed to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of the 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 also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Thorne has waived appellate review by failing to timely 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