David Meyers v. Harold Clarke ( 2021 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-7349
DAVID MEYERS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD CLARKE, Director, VADOC,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:19-cv-00234-AWA-RJK)
Submitted: August 23, 2021 Decided: August 31, 2021
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Meyers, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Meyers seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 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 Meyers 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). Meyers 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, deny leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We also deny as moot Meyers’ motions to place the
appeal in abeyance and to amend. 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