Case ID: f-appx_133/html/0046-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Van Prince WELCH, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Respondent—Appellee.
    No. 04-7952.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 29, 2005.
    Decided: May 16, 2005.
    Van Prince Welch, Appellant pro se.
    Richard Carson Vorhis, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, for Appellee.
    
      Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

Van Prince Welch seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting a magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss Welch’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as untimely filed. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Welch has not made the requisite showing. 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 
      
       We find that Welch has waived appellate review of his claim that his petition should have been construed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) by failing to lodge that specific objection to the magistrate judge's recommendation after receiving proper notice of the consequences of the failure to object. See Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir.1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985).