US v. Thomas Brincefield, No. 16-6777 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6777 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. THOMAS LEE BRINCEFIELD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:03-cr-00346-JAB-1; 1:11-cv-00013-JABJEP) Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 22, 2016 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Brincefield, Appellant Pro Se. John Mcrae Alsup, Robert Michael Hamilton, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Thomas Lee Brincefield appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting in part and denying in part his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The district court referred this case to pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). a magistrate judge The magistrate judge recommended that the motion be granted in part and denied in part and advised Brincefield that 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). Brincefield has waived appellate review by failing to file timely 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
