Opinion

United States v. Tremaine Brown

  • 712 F. App'x 266
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Filed
Feb 20, 2018
Status
Unpublished
On the bench
Wilkinson, Floyd, Thacker
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 4.2%

The opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-7181

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TREMAINE ANTWAUN BROWN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at

Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:14-cr-00285-CCE-1; 1:16-cv-798)

Submitted: February 15, 2018 Decided: February 20, 2018

Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tremaine Antwaun Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Graham Tod Green, Assistant United

States Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Robert Michael Hamilton, Angela

Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Tremaine Antwaun Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief

on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The district court referred this case to a

magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). 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.

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 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 this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

2

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.