Court Opinion

ID: 9391004
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-28 21:01:33.053625+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:38.898925
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7001      Doc: 15         Filed: 04/27/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7001

        DWAYNE DOMINIC HINES,

                            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. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (2:20-cv-00522-RGD-LRL)

        Submitted: April 25, 2023                                         Decided: April 27, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, THACKER, Circuit Judge, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Dwayne Dominic Hines, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7001         Doc: 15      Filed: 04/27/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Dwayne Dominic Hines seeks to appeal the district court’s dismissing as untimely

        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 denying relief

        and advised Hines 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). Hines 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

        deny Hines’ motion to appoint counsel.

               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