US v. Jermaine Bank

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying for certificate of appealability Originating case number: 1:07-cr-00157-1,1:10-cv-00276 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999156325]. Mailed to: Jermaine Banks. [13-6399]

Appeal: 13-6399

Doc: 8

Filed: 07/23/2013

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6399

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JERMAINE DONNELL BANKS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, Senior
District Judge. (1:07-cr-00157-1; 1:10-cv-00276)

Submitted:

July 18, 2013

Decided:

July 23, 2013

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jermaine Donnell Banks, Appellant Pro Se. Gary L. Call, Steven
Loew, Assistant United States Attorneys, Charleston, West
Virginia; Miller A. Bushong, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-6399

Doc: 8

Filed: 07/23/2013

Pg: 2 of 2

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
magistrate

timely

judge’s

filing

of

specific

recommendation

is

objections

necessary

to

to

a

preserve

appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when
the

parties

have

noncompliance.

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).

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
before

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

DISMISSED
2