United States of America v. Jerone Junior Little, a/k/a Tubby Little

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6140
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JERONE JUNIOR LITTLE, a/k/a Tubby Little,
Defendant – Appellant.
No. 11-6141
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JERONE JUNIOR LITTLE, a/k/a Tubby Little,
Defendant – Appellant.
No. 11-6142
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
JERONE JUNIOR LITTLE, a/k/a Tubby Little,
Defendant – Appellant.
No. 11-6143
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JERONE JUNIOR LITTLE, a/k/a Tubby Little,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. Thomas David Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:04-cr-00380-TDS-1; 1:04-cr-00381-TDS-1;
1:04-cr-00382-TDS-1; 1:04-cr-00383-TDS-1; 1:10-cv-00664-TDS-WWD)
Submitted: March 31, 2011 Decided: April 6, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jerone Junior Little, Appellant Pro Se. Michael A. DeFranco,
Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Jerone Junior Little seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
(West Supp. 2010) motion challenging multiple convictions
arising from four bank robberies. The district court referred
this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2010). The magistrate judge
recommended that relief be denied and advised Little that the
failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could
waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the
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 (1985).
Little has waived appellate review by failing to file objections
after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

-- 3 of 4 --

4
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED

-- 4 of 4 --