U.S. v. BANKS, 13-6399. (2013)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20130723130
Visitors: 1
Filed: Jul. 23, 2013
Latest Update: Jul. 23, 2013
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jermaine Donnell Banks seeks to appeal the denial of relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West Supp. 2013) motion. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2013). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Banks that the failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jermaine Donnell Banks seeks to appeal the denial of relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West Supp. 2013) motion. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2013). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Banks that the failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jermaine Donnell Banks seeks to appeal the denial of relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) motion. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2013). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Banks that the failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon 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). Banks 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.
Source: Leagle
