Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

United States v. Carter

09-6242·Judge: Wilkinson, King, Gregory·Attorney: Anthony Charles Carter, Appellant Pro Se. Patrick Auld, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.0 citations

No summary available for this case.

Opinions

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6242

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANTHONY CHARLES CARTER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:06-cr-00100-NCT-1; 1:07-cv00980-NCT-WWD)

Submitted: May 28, 2009 Decided: June 8, 2009

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Charles Carter, Appellant Pro Se. Patrick Auld, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Anthony Charles Carter seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West

Supp. 2008) motion. The district court referred this case to a

magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006).

The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and

advised Carter that the failure to file timely objections to

this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district

court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this

warning, Carter failed to object to the magistrate judge’s

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). Carter

has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific

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

2 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED

3