UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6295
NEGASH MALEDE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ERIC WILSON, Warden, FCI Petersburg,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda Wright Allen, District
Judge. (2:11-cv-00322-AWA-TEM)
Submitted: April 26, 2012 Decided: May 1, 2012
Before GREGORY, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Negash Malede, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Lynn Watt, Assistant
United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Negash Malede, a federal prisoner convicted under the
District of Columbia Code, seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp.
2011) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit
justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006); Madley v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 278
F.3d 1306, 1309-10 (D.C. Cir. 2002). A certificate of
appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)
(2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a
prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that
reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s
assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court
denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must
demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is
debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the
denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.
2
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Malede has not made the requisite showing. * Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, 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
*
In particular, we note that the timely filing of
objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary
to preserve appellate review of the substance of that
recommendation. United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621-22
(4th Cir. 2007); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th
Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985).
Because Malede, a pro se litigant, received notice of the
consequences of a failure to object to the magistrate judge’s
report and yet failed to do so, he has waived appellate review.
Ids.
3