Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07271/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07271-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7271

JAMES HENRY BROWN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

LESLIE J. FLEMING,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior 

District Judge. (3:15-cv-00510-REP-RCY)

Submitted: January 17, 2017 Decided: January 20, 2017

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Henry Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Katherine Quinlan Adelfio, 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7271 Doc: 10 Filed: 01/20/2017 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

James Henry Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing 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 the petition be dismissed and advised Brown 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). Brown has waived appellate review by failing to 

file objections after receiving proper notice. 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 this

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-7271 Doc: 10 Filed: 01/20/2017 Pg: 2 of 2