Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Charles Paul Johnson v. United States, 76 F.3d 373, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    This document is a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit from January 25, 1996. It involves an appeal by Charles Paul Johnson of a district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The appeals court affirmed the lower court's judgment, as Johnson had failed to file timely objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation, as required to preserve his right to appellate review, despite being properly warned. The appeals court dispensed with oral arguments, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials provided.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-01-25 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 76 F.3d 373 Docket: 95-7732

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit from January 25, 1996. It involves an appeal by Charles Paul Johnson of a district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The appeals court affirmed the lower court's judgment, as Johnson had failed to file timely objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation, as required to preserve his right to appellate review, despite being properly warned. The appeals court dispensed with oral arguments, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials provided.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    5 views2 pages

    Charles Paul Johnson v. United States, 76 F.3d 373, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit from January 25, 1996. It involves an appeal by Charles Paul Johnson of a district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The appeals court affirmed the lower court's judgment, as Johnson had failed to file timely objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation, as required to preserve his right to appellate review, despite being properly warned. The appeals court dispensed with oral arguments, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials provided.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    76 F.

    3d 373

    NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation


    of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing
    res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires
    service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth
    Circuit.
    Charles Paul JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 95-7732.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted Jan. 11, 1996.
    Decided Jan. 25, 1996.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of
    West Virginia, at Parkersburg. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge.
    (CR-88-266, CA-88-266-6-1)
    Charles Paul Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. OFFICE OF THE UNITED
    STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    S.D.W.Va.
    AFFIRMED.
    Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:

    Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.
    2255 (1988) motion. Appellant's case was referred to a magistrate judge
    pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) (1988). The magistrate judge
    recommended that relief be denied and advised Appellant that failure to file
    timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a
    district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning,

    Appellant failed to object to the magistrate judge's recommendation.


    2

    The timely filing of 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 that failure to object will waive appellate
    review. * Appellant has waived appellate review by failing to file objections
    after receiving proper notice. We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district
    court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
    are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would
    not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED.

    Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir.1985). See generally Thomas
    v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985)

    You might also like