US v. Montrose Bennett

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying certificate of appealability. Originating case number: 7:09-cr-00054-H-4, 7:12-cv-00016-H. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999481987].. [14-7079]

Appeal: 14-7079

Doc: 7

Filed: 11/25/2014

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7079

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MONTROSE BENNETT,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington.
Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (7:09-cr-00054-H-4)

Submitted:

November 20, 2014

Decided:

November 25, 2014

Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Montrose Bennett, Appellant Pro Se.
Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7079

Doc: 7

Filed: 11/25/2014

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Montrose Bennett seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.

The

district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant
to

28

U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B)

(2012).

The

magistrate

judge

recommended that relief be denied and advised Bennett 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.
Cir.

1985);

Bennett

has

been

warned

of

the

consequences

of

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

see

also

waived

Thomas

v.

appellate

Arn,

474

review

by

objections after receiving proper notice.

U.S.

140

failing

(1985).
to

file

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