Brown v. Jarvis

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7687 ANDREW BROWN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MACK JARVIS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-97-867-5-F) Submitted: May 28, 1999 Decided: September 13, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andrew Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Andrew Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order dis- missing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). Brown’s case was referred to a magistrate judge pur- suant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Brown 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, Brown failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. 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, 155 (1985). Brown has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. We accordingly deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We grant the motion to supplement the record and 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