Court Opinion

ID: 9368153
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-02 21:00:49.391478+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:05.857573
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7277      Doc: 10          Filed: 02/01/2023   Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 21-7277

        DAVID G. CLARK,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the 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. (2:20-cv-00294-AWA-RJK)

        Submitted: January 10, 2023                                       Decided: February 1, 2023

        Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        David G. Clark, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7277      Doc: 10         Filed: 02/01/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               David G. Clark seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.

        § 2254 petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies. The district

        court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The

        magistrate judge recommended dismissal of the petition and advised Clark that failure to

        file timely objections to this recommendation would waive appellate review of a district

        court order based upon the recommendation.

              The timely filing of 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). Clark 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