Court Opinion

ID: 4570392
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-09-28 19:01:13.86635+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:25:02.907313
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 19-7505

ESTES JENNINGS,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

BERNARD BOOKER,

                    Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:18-cv-00553-HEH-RCY)

Submitted: September 24, 2020                               Decided: September 28, 2020

Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Estes Jennings, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Estes Jennings seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on Jennings’

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 Jennings that failure to file timely, specific 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. 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). Although Jennings received proper

notice and filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, he has waived

appellate review of his claims, except the claims the magistrate judge found were

procedurally defaulted, because the objections were not specific to the particularized legal

recommendations made by the magistrate judge. See Martin, 858 F.3d at 245 (holding

that, “to preserve for appeal an issue in a magistrate judge’s report, a party must object to

the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to

alert the district court of the true ground for the objection” (internal quotation marks

omitted)).

       Regarding the procedurally defaulted claims to which Jennings specifically

objected, Jennings may not appeal from that portion of the order unless a circuit justice or

                                             2
judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on procedural

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is

debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional

right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529

U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that

Jennings has not made the requisite showing.

       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

                                             3