Winslow v. Angelone

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6457 ANTONIO DOUGLAS WINSLOW, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Depart- ment of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-98-905-2) Submitted: June 17, 1999 Decided: June 23, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Antonio Douglas Winslow, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Bain Smith, As- sistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Antonio Winslow appeals the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West Supp. 1999) petition. Winslow’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 Winslow 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, Winslow failed to file specific objections to the magistrate judge’s findings. 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 generally Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Winslow has waived appellate review by failing to file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, but deny a certificate of appealability 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 2