US v. Anthony Carter

Filing 920090608

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6242

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANTHONY CHARLES CARTER, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:06-cr-00100-NCT-1; 1:07-cv00980-NCT-WWD)

Submitted:

May 28, 2009

Decided:

June 8, 2009

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Charles Assistant United for Appellee.

Carter, Appellant Pro Se. Patrick Auld, States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Anthony Charles Carter seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2008) motion. The district court referred this case to a

magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and

advised Carter that the failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the to recommendation. to the Despite this

warning,

Carter

failed

object

magistrate

judge's

recommendation. The magistrate timely filing of specific is objections to to a

judge's

recommendation

necessary

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 Carter

Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).

has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice. a certificate with of appealability argument and Accordingly, we deny the appeal. and We legal

dismiss the in

dispense

oral

because presented

facts the

contentions

are

adequately

materials

2

before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process. DISMISSED

3