Court Opinion

ID: 4705714
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-07-22 20:03:18.261578+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:26.119049
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 20-6915

RASHEE DONELL JOHNSON,

                    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. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (2:19-cv-00462-RGD-RJK)

Submitted: July 20, 2021                                          Decided: July 22, 2021

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rashee Donell Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

      Rashee Donell Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be

denied and advised Johnson 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. 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). Johnson has waived appellate

review by failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation 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

                                            2