United States v. McNeair

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6646 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JEFFREY DENNARD MCNEAIR, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Salisbury. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Dis- trict Judge. (CR-96-70, CA-99-206-1) Submitted: September 29, 2000 Decided: October 19, 2000 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey Dennard McNeair, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Alexander Weinman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jeffrey Dennard McNeair appeals the district court’s order de- nying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000). McNeair’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 McNeair that the failure to file and serve timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommen- dation. Despite this warning, McNeair failed to serve his objec- tions to the magistrate judge’s recommendation on the Appellee. The timely filing and service 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 do so 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). McNeair has waived appellate review by failing to file and serve objections after receiving proper notice and an extension of time to do so. We accordingly 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2