Jonathan Mayo v. Chris Walz ( 2020 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-7229
JONATHAN ONEIL MAYO,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
CHRIS WALZ, Interim Superintendent; MARK RANKIN HERRING, Attorney
General,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:20-cv-00215-MHL-RCY)
Submitted: November 19, 2020 Decided: November 24, 2020
Before WILKINSON, KING, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jonathan Oneil Mayo, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jonathan Oneil Mayo seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on
Mayo’s 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 Mayo 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). Mayo 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