Case ID: f-appx_60/html/0976-02.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

Kevin Devon HOGUE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 03-6192.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted April 17, 2003.
    Decided April 23, 2003.
    Kevin Devon Hogue, Appellant Pro Se. Amy L. Marshall, Office Of The Attorney General Of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Kevin Devon Hogue seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 686(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Hogue that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Hogue failed to object to the portion of the magistrate judge’s report recommending dismissal of Hogue’s claims on the merits.

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 that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir.1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 485 (1985). Hogue has waived appellate review by failing to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss his petition on the merits. 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.