Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07223/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07223-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Harold W. Clarke
Appellee
Alex M. Dinkins
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7223

ALEX M. DINKINS,

 Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, 

District Judge. (2:13-cv-00517-AWA-LRL)

Submitted: February 12, 2015 Decided: February 18, 2015

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alex M. Dinkins, Appellant Pro Se. Rosemary Virginia Bourne, 

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

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7223 Doc: 12 Filed: 02/18/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Alex Dinkins appeals the district court’s order 

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 relief be denied and advised Dinkins 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 Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Dinkins has 

waived appellate review by failing to file objections after 

receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed 

in forma pauperis and affirm the judgment of the district court.

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.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 14-7223 Doc: 12 Filed: 02/18/2015 Pg: 2 of 2