Summary
finding that prisoner waived appellate review of issues by failing to raise them in objections to magistrate judge's report
Summary of this case from United States v. WatersOpinion
22-7085
02-24-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KARI BUTLER, Defendant-Appellant.
Kari Butler, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: February 21, 2023
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (7:18-cr-00184-FL-4; 7:21-cv-00137-FL)
Kari Butler, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kari Butler seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Butler that failure to file timely, specific objections to this recommendation could forfeit 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. Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846-47 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154-55 (1985). Butler has forfeited appellate review by failing to file objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED