Michael Stewart v. Harold Clarke , 691 F. App'x 94 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 17-6047
    MICHAEL LYNN STEWART,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
    Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:16-cv-00033-MSD-RJK)
    Submitted: May 25, 2017                                           Decided: May 31, 2017
    Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Michael Lynn Stewart, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin Hyman Katz, Assistant Attorney
    General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Michael Lynn Stewart 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 Stewart that failure to file timely 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. Wright v. Collins, 
    766 F.2d 841
    , 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 
    474 U.S. 140
     (1985). Stewart
    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: 17-6047

Citation Numbers: 691 F. App'x 94

Judges: Motz, Thacker, Harris

Filed Date: 5/31/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024