
USCA1 Opinion

	




          September 10, 1992    [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ___________________          No. 91-2280                                            CARLOS CUEVAS MORALES,                                Petitioner, Appellant,                                          v.                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                Respondent, Appellee.                                  __________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO                  [Hon. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez, U.S. District Judge]                                               ___________________                                 ___________________                                        Before                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,                                         ___________                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,                                     ____________________                               and Cyr, Circuit Judge.                                        _____________                                 ___________________               Carlos Wilfredo Cuevas-Morales on brief pro se.               ______________________________               Daniel  F. Lopez  Romo, United  States Attorney,  and Warren               ______________________                                ______          Vazquez, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.          _______                                  __________________                                  __________________                 Per Curiam.  Appellant seeks to  appeal a district court                 __________            judgment dismissing his motion, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.              2255.    Appellant  failed  to  file  any  objection  to  the            magistrate's  report and  recommendation, however, and  so is            precluded from  obtaining appellate  review.  Thomas  v. Arn,                                                          ______     ___            474 U.S.  140 (1985);  United States v.  Valencia-Copete, 792                                   _____________     _______________            F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir. 1986).                 Appellant, who  is now proceeding pro  se, suggests that            we ought not to penalize him for this  failure of his counsel            below.  That indulgence, assuming we would grant it, however,            avails  appellant nothing.   We have reviewed  the record and            the briefs  on appeal and,  were we to  reach the  merits, we            would  affirm  essentially  for  the reasons  stated  in  the            Magistrate's  Report and Recommendation,  dated September 16,            1991.    In  short,  appellant  was  not  prejudiced  by  his            counsel's failure.                 Appeal dismissed.                 _________________                                         -2-
