UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-6783
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
STANLEY HOBEREK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-99-13, CA-00-184-5)
Submitted: July 25, 2002 Decided: August 2, 2002
Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stanley Hoberek, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. McWilliams, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Stanley Hoberek seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.
2002). Appellant’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 Appellant that
failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could
waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the
recommendation. Appellant raised one objection to the magistrate
judge’s report, and challenged the recommendation of dismissal of
his claim based upon Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).
However, despite the warning, Appellant failed to object to the
magistrate judge’s recommendation on the remaining claims.
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 of
the remaining non-Apprendi claims by failing to file objections
after receiving proper notice. We dismiss the appeal as to the
Apprendi claim based upon the reasoning of the district court.
United States v. Hoberek, Nos. CR-99-13; CA-00-184-5 (N.D.W. Va.
Apr. 11, 2002). We accordingly deny a certificate of appealability
2
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
3