Dijuan Clark v. Harold Clarke ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 21-6250
    DIJUAN CLARK,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    HAROLD CLARKE,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
    Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (2:20-cv-00083-RGD-LRL)
    Submitted: December 21, 2021                                Decided: December 22, 2021
    Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
    Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Dijuan Clark, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Dijuan Clark seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 636
    (b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and
    advised Clark that failure to file timely, specific 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. Martin v. Duffy, 
    858 F.3d 239
    , 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins, 
    766 F.2d 841
    , 846-47 (4th Cir. 1985); see
    also Thomas v. Arn, 
    474 U.S. 140
    , 154-55 (1985). Clark has waived appellate review by
    failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-6250

Filed Date: 12/22/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/22/2021