Court Opinion

ID: 4361213
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-01-23 21:00:31.941266+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:37.675576
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 18-7338

SENTRELL LEVERT COPELAND,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections,

                    Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:17-cv-00093-AWA-RJK)

Submitted: January 17, 2019                                       Decided: January 23, 2019

Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sentrell Levert Copeland, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Sentrell Levert Copeland 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 relief be denied and advised Copeland that failure to file timely

objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order

based upon the recommendation. Copeland failed to file objections, so the district court

accepted the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissed Copeland’s petition

for habeas relief.

       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).

Copeland has waived appellate review by failing to file objections. Accordingly, we

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

                                           2