UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-7195
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WAYNE EDWARD SPINKS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. Thomas David Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:04-cr-00426-TDS-1; 1:07-cv-00720-RAE)
Submitted: March 17, 2009 Decided: March 20, 2009
Before TRAXLER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Wayne Edward Spinks, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Wayne Edward Spinks seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp. 2008) motion. The district court referred this case to a
magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006).
The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and
advised Spinks 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,
Spinks failed to object to the magistrate judge’s
recommendation. *
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 of the consequences of
noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th
Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Spinks
has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific
objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny
a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We
*
We note that Spinks admits that he received the magistrate
judge’s recommendation within the ten-day period for filing
objections, yet he failed to file objections or a motion for
extension of time.
2
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