White v. Clarke

Full title: JUAN D. WHITE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director…

Court: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: May 27, 2015

604 F. App'x 310 (4th Cir. 2015)

Opinion

No. 15-6164

05-27-2015

JUAN D. WHITE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.

Juan Delano White, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM

UNPUBLISHED Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:14-cv-00221-RAJ-LRL) Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Juan Delano White, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Juan Delano White seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as successive. 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 denying the petition without prejudice on the ground that it was successive and advised White that failure to file timely objections to the findings and recommendations set forth in the report would waive appellate review of a district court order based upon such findings and recommendations.

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). White has waived appellate review by failing to file objections in the district court. 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