Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06700/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06700-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 16-6700

RAYSHAWN R. WILLIAMS,

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. (2:15-cv-00422-RBS-DEM)

Submitted: August 18, 2016 Decided: August 23, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rayshawn R. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Bidwell Theisen, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6700 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/23/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Rayshawn R. Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on 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 relief be denied and advised Williams that failure 

to file timely 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. Wright v. Collins, 

766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 

U.S. 140 (1985). Williams has waived appellate review by failing 

to file objections. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of 

appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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: 16-6700 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/23/2016 Pg: 2 of 2