Dennis v. Johnson , 251 F. App'x 823 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-6631
    RANDY LAMELL DENNIS,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    GENE JOHNSON, Director of        the   Virginia
    Department of Corrections,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Walter D. Kelley, Jr., District
    Judge. (2:06-cv-00082-WDK)
    Submitted:   October 18, 2007             Decided:   October 24, 2007
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Randy Lamell Dennis, Appellant Pro Se. Josephine Frances Whalen,
    OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Randy Lamell Dennis seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000) petition.   The
    district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to
    
    28 U.S.C. § 636
    (b)(1)(B) (2000).   The magistrate judge recommended
    that relief be denied and advised Dennis that failure to file
    timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate
    review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.
    Despite this warning, Dennis failed to file specific objections to
    the magistrate judge’s 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).   Dennis has waived appellate review by failing to
    timely file specific 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
    the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-6631

Citation Numbers: 251 F. App'x 823

Judges: King, Niemeyer, Per Curiam, Wilkinson

Filed Date: 10/24/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023