US v. Gebront Gaddy

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:08-cr-00050-JPB-DJJ-1,3:11-cv-00049-JPB-DJJ Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998864805]. Mailed to: Gaddy. [12-6219]

Appeal: 12-6219

Doc: 6

Filed: 05/31/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6219

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GEBRONT MAZAUNTI GADDY, a/k/a T, a/k/a JB,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge.
(3:08-cr-00050-JPB-DJJ-1; 3:11-cv-00049JPB-DJJ)

Submitted:

May 24, 2012

Before MOTZ and
Circuit Judge.

DAVIS,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

May 31, 2012

HAMILTON,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gebront Mazaunti Gaddy, Appellant Pro Se.
Paul Thomas
Camilletti, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-6219

Doc: 6

Filed: 05/31/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Gebront Mazaunti Gaddy seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp. 2011) 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.

2011).

The

magistrate

judge

recommended

that

relief be denied and advised Gaddy that the failure to file
timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate
review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.
The
magistrate

timely

judge’s

filing

of

recommendation

specific
is

objections

necessary

to

to

a

preserve

appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when
the

parties

noncompliance.

have

been

warned

of

the

consequences

of

Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th

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

Gaddy

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

We have reviewed the supplemental authorities Gaddy filed
and conclude that they do not alter the disposition of this
appeal.

2

Appeal: 12-6219

before

Doc: 6

the

court

Filed: 05/31/2012

and

Pg: 3 of 3

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
DISMISSED

3