Filed: Jun. 18, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6247 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANGEL MEDEL LORENZO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:12-cr-00279-WO-1; 1:15-cv- 01006-WO-LPA) Submitted: June 13, 2019 Decided: June 18, 2019 Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unp
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6247 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANGEL MEDEL LORENZO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:12-cr-00279-WO-1; 1:15-cv- 01006-WO-LPA) Submitted: June 13, 2019 Decided: June 18, 2019 Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpu..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-6247
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANGEL MEDEL LORENZO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:12-cr-00279-WO-1; 1:15-cv-
01006-WO-LPA)
Submitted: June 13, 2019 Decided: June 18, 2019
Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Angel Medel Lorenzo, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Angel Medel Lorenzo seeks to appeal the district court’s order 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
denying Lorenzo’s motion and advised him that the failure to file timely objections to this
recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based on the
recommendation.
The timely filing of specific 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 of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins,
766
F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140 (1985).
Lorenzo 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 contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
2