United States of America v. Melvin Milton Deshields, a/k/a Michael Donovan Hayes, a/k/a Chuck, a/k/a Donovan…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6790
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MELVIN MILTON DESHIELDS, a/k/a Michael Donovan
Hayes, a/k/a Chuck, a/k/a Donovan Michael
Hayes,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District
Judge. (CR-00-191; CA-03-562-1)
Submitted: September 9, 2004 Decided: September 15, 2004
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Melvin Milton Deshields, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Jane Hairston,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Melvin Milton Deshields seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2000). The district court referred this case to a
magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The
magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised
Deshields that the failure to file timely objections to this
recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court
order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning,
Deshields 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 that failure to object will waive appellate review. See
Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Deshields has waived appellate
review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.
Accordingly, we 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 --