United States of America v. Mark Allen Rollyson

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7249
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARK ALLEN ROLLYSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge. (3:07-cr-00098-JPB-JES-1; 3:08-cv-00143-
JPB-JES)
Submitted: October 29, 2009 Decided: November 10, 2009
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark Allen Rollyson, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Oliver Mucklow,
Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

PER CURIAM:
Mark Allen Rollyson seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp. 2009) motion. The district court referred this case to a
magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006).
The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and
advised Rollyson 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, Rollyson failed to specifically 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 of the consequences of
noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th
Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985).
Rollyson has waived appellate review by failing to timely file
specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly,
we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
We also deny Rollyson’s motion to appoint counsel.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --