US v. Thomas Brincefield

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:03-cr-00346-JAB-1, 1:11-cv-00013-JAB-JEP. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999973267]. Mailed to: Thomas Brincefield. [16-6777]

Appeal: 16-6777

Doc: 11

Filed: 11/22/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6777

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
THOMAS LEE BRINCEFIELD,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:03-cr-00346-JAB-1; 1:11-cv-00013-JABJEP)

Submitted:

November 17, 2016

Decided:

November 22, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas Brincefield, Appellant Pro Se. John Mcrae Alsup, Robert
Michael Hamilton, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6777

Doc: 11

Filed: 11/22/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Thomas Lee Brincefield appeals the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting
in part and denying in part his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.
The district

court

referred

this

case

to

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012).

a

magistrate

judge

The magistrate judge

recommended that the motion be granted in part and denied in part
and advised Brincefield 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,

766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140 (1985).

Brincefield has waived appellate review by

failing to file timely 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 before this
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

2