United States of America v. Thomas Jerecki, a/k/a Tommy Jerecki, a/k/a Thomas Robert Jerecki

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-7855
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
THOMAS JERECKI, a/k/a Tommy Jerecki, a/k/a
Thomas Robert Jerecki,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis-
trict of West Virginia, at Parkersburg. Charles H. Haden II, Chief
District Judge. (CR-98-111, CA-00-1092-6)
Submitted: February 14, 2002 Decided: February 26, 2002
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas Jerecki, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Thomas Jerecki seeks to appeal the district court’s judgment
order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.
2001). Jerecki’s case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recom-
mended that relief be denied and advised Jerecki 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, Jerecki failed to object to the magistrate
judge’s recommendation. The district court adopted the magistrate
judge’s findings and recommendation.
The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge’s recom-
mendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the sub-
stance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned
that failure to object will waive appellate review. Wright v.
Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Jerecki has waived appellate review by
failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accord-
ingly, we deny Jerecki’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pau-
peris. We also 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 of 2 --