UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6942
ANTHONY EARL WILKINS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
DAVID CHESTER, Superintendent,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (CA-02-200-5-F)
Submitted: December 20, 2004 Decided: January 19, 2005
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony Earl Wilkins, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,
III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Earl Wilkins seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).
The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge
recommended that relief be denied and advised Wilkins that failure
to timely file specific, written objections to this recommendation
could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon
the recommendation. Despite this warning, Wilkins failed to file
specific objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.
Wilkins’ “objection” was entirely general and conclusory. As the
district court noted in its order, Wilkins “[did] not state any
grounds for his objection.”
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 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). Wilkins has waived appellate
review by failing to file objections with any specificity after
receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal.
- 2 -
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 -