Julio Nazarette-Garcia v. T. McCoy

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cv-00754-WO-LPA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999762966]. Mailed to: J. Nazarette-Garcia. [15-7562]

Appeal: 15-7562

Doc: 13

Filed: 02/26/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7562

JULIO CESAR NAZARETTE-GARCIA,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
T. MCCOY,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:14-cv-00754-WO-LPA)

Submitted:

February 23, 2016

Decided:

February 26, 2016

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Julio Cesar Nazarette-Garcia, Appellant Pro Se.
Clarence Joe
DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7562

Doc: 13

Filed: 02/26/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Julio Cesar Nazarette-Garcia seeks to appeal the district
court’s

order

petition.
judge

denying

relief

on

his

28

U.S.C.

§ 2254

(2012)

The district court referred this case to a magistrate

pursuant

to

28

U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B)

(2012).

The

magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised
Nazarette-Garcia that failure to file timely objections to this
recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court
order based upon the 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,

see

766

F.2d

841,

845-46

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).

(4th

Cir.

1985);

also

Nazarette-Garcia has waived

appellate review by failing to file objections.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions

are

adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

2