Case Name: Alex M. DINKINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-02-18
Citations: 594 F. App'x 138
Docket Number: No. 14-7223
Parties: Alex M. DINKINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 594
Pages: 138–139

Head Matter:
Alex M. DINKINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 14-7223.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 12, 2015.
Decided: Feb. 18, 2015.
Alex M. Dinkins, Appellant Pro Se. Rosemary Virginia Bourne, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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. § 686(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. Am, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Din-kins 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.