Taylor v. Angelone

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7208 JULIAN THOMAS TAYLOR, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-1404-2) Submitted: January 20, 2000 Decided: January 28, 2000 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Julian Thomas Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel John Munroe, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Julian Thomas Taylor seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1999). Taylor’s case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Taylor that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Taylor failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The timely filing of 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 that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. We ac- cordingly deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the ap- peal. Furthermore, Taylor’s motion to appoint counsel is denied. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2