Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06034/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06034-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Harold W. Clarke
Appellee
Cassius L. Jones
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6034

CASSIUS L. JONES,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Department of Corrections 

for Virginia,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District 

Judge. (2:14-cv-00306-RAJ-DEM)

Submitted: May 19, 2015 Decided: May 21, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darryl Arthur Parker, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Steven 

Andrew Witmer, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6034 Doc: 15 Filed: 05/21/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Cassius L. Jones 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 the petition be dismissed as untimely and 

advised Jones 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). Jones 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: 15-6034 Doc: 15 Filed: 05/21/2015 Pg: 2 of 2