Court Opinion

ID: 5120059
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-10-21 19:00:45.90505+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:56.975090
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 21-6483

TIMOTHY ONEAL BULLOCK,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE,

                    Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:19-cv-00945-MHL-RCY)

Submitted: October 19, 2021                                   Decided: October 21, 2021

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, AGEE, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy Oneal Bullock, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Timothy Oneal Bullock seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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 that the petition be dismissed as

untimely and advised Bullock 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, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see

also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Bullock has waived appellate review by failing

to file objections 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