Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07590/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07590-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 19-7590

MARK A. FLETCHER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

MARSHALL R. PIKE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:19-cv-00311-TDS-JEP)

Submitted: February 20, 2020 Decided: February 25, 2020

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark A. Fletcher, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7590 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/25/2020 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Mark A. Fletcher seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 (2018) petition and denying his motion for reconsideration. The district 

court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2018). 

The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Fletcher 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). Fletcher has waived appellate review 

by failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after receiving 

proper notice. Accordingly, we deny Fletcher’s motion for 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

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7590 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/25/2020 Pg: 2 of 2