Filed: Nov. 09, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6928 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHAEL CHARLES ANITON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-93-157, CA-97-576-1) Submitted: November 4, 1999 Decided: November 9, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinio
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6928 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHAEL CHARLES ANITON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-93-157, CA-97-576-1) Submitted: November 4, 1999 Decided: November 9, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-6928
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL CHARLES ANITON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (CR-93-157, CA-97-576-1)
Submitted: November 4, 1999 Decided: November 9, 1999
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Charles Aniton, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Jane Hairston,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Michael Charles Aniton seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp. 1999). Aniton’s case was referred to a magistrate judge pur-
suant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge
recommended that relief be denied and advised Aniton that failure
to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appel-
late review of a district court order based upon the recom-
mendation. Despite this warning, Aniton 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); see also Thomas v.
Arn,
474 U.S. 140 (1985). Aniton 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
2