Paul Wharton v. Harold Clarke , 599 F. App'x 493 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 14-7776
    PAUL ANTOINE WHARTON,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    HAROLD   W.  CLARKE,    Director,    Virginia   Department   of
    Corrections,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk.      Arenda L. Wright Allen,
    District Judge. (2:14-cv-00144-AWA-DEM)
    Submitted:   April 3, 2015                 Decided:   April 13, 2015
    Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Paul Antoine Wharton, Appellant Pro Se.     Susan Mozley Harris,
    Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Paul Antoine Wharton seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2012) petition.
    The   district    court      referred    this     case       to   a   magistrate      judge
    pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 636
    (b)(1)(B) (2012).                            The magistrate
    judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Wharton that
    failure to file timely objections to this recommendation would
    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).           Wharton      has    waived
    appellate review by failing to file objections.                         Accordingly, we
    deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
    forma pauperis, 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: 14-7776

Citation Numbers: 599 F. App'x 493

Filed Date: 4/13/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023