Dwight Simpkins v. Harold Clarke , 589 F. App'x 109 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7194
DWIGHT G. SIMPKINS,
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. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief
District Judge. (2:13-cv-00610-RBS-LRL)
Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: December 23, 2014
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dwight G. Simpkins, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew Witmer,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dwight G. Simpkins seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)
petition, and he has filed an application to proceed in forma
pauperis, as well as a motion for a transcript at government
expense. The district court referred this case to a magistrate
judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C) (2012). The
magistrate judge recommended that the petition be dismissed as
untimely and advised Simpkins that the failure to file timely
specific 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. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co.,
416 F.3d 310, 315-16 (4th Cir. 2005); Wright v. Collins, 766
F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). Simpkins has waived appellate
review by failing to file specific and relevant objections after
receiving proper notice. * Accordingly, we deny Simpkins’
*
In addition, Simpkins’ informal brief merely restates his
habeas claims and does not address the district court’s
dispositive procedural rulings. Thus, Simpkins has also
forfeited appellate review of the dispositive rulings. See 4th
Cir. R. 34(b) (limiting review to the issues raised in the
(Continued)
2
application for in forma pauperis status and his motion for
transcript at government expense, 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
informal brief); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241
n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (holding that failure to raise issue in
opening brief constitutes abandonment of that issue).
3