Court Opinion

ID: 4689901
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-05-25 19:01:37.757146+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:02:22.509972
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 21-6076

NAPOLEON J. RANKIN BEY,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

                    Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:20-cv-01048-TDS-JEP)

Submitted: May 20, 2021                                           Decided: May 25, 2021

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Napoleon J. Rankin Bey, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Napoleon J. Rankin Bey seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing 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 dismissing the

petition as successive and advised Rankin Bey 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). Rankin Bey 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