# United States v. Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · April 7, 2010 · 373 F. App'x 343

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1341

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wilbert Herman BROWN, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** April 7, 2010
- **Citations:** 373 F. App'x 343
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Wilkinson, Duncan, Hamilton
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1341

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7392

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

WILBERT HERMAN BROWN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior
District Judge. (7:06-cr-00098-jct-mfu-2; 7:08-cv-80102-jct-
mfu)

Submitted: March 22, 2010 Decided: April 7, 2010

Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wilbert Herman Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew Bassford,
Thomas Jack Bondurant, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys,
Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Wilbert Herman Brown 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 Brown 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,

Brown 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 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). Brown

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 dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

2
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED

3

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1341. Public record. Not legal advice.