US v. Woods
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHAEL EDWARD WOODS, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior District Judge. (1:04-cr-00174-WLO; 1:06-cv-00305-WLO)
May 31, 2007
June 8, 2007
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Edward Woods, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Jane Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney, Angela Hewlett Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Michael Edward Woods seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The
district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended
that relief be denied and advised Woods that the failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Woods failed to object 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 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). Woods 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
- 2 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?