UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-7404
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CARL TATE, a/k/a Carl V. Tate,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis-
trict of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-92-5, CA-97-67-1, CR-92-180, CA-97-73-1)
Submitted: March 30, 2001 Decided: April 24, 2001
Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carl Tate, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant
United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Carl V. Tate appeals the district court’s order denying his 28
U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000) motion. Tate’s motion was re-
ferred 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 Tate 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 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). Although Tate filed objections to the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, he failed to object
to several of the issues he now raises on appeal. Accordingly, we
find that he has waived appellate review of these claims.
As to those claims where Tate did file a proper objection, we
have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting
the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, as to those claims we deny a certificate of appeal-
ability and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. United
States v. Tate, Nos. CR-92-5; CA-97-67-1; CR-92-180; CA-97-73-1
(N.D.W. Va. June 27, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because
2
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma-
terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3