Opinion

James Brown v. Leslie Fleming

  • 673 F. App'x 343
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Filed
Jan 20, 2017
Status
Unpublished
On the bench
Niemeyer, Traxler, King
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 3.4%

The opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7271

JAMES HENRY BROWN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

LESLIE J. FLEMING,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior

District Judge. (3:15-cv-00510-REP-RCY)

Submitted: January 17, 2017 Decided: January 20, 2017

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Henry Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Katherine Quinlan Adelfio,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

James Henry Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

dismissing 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 the petition be dismissed and advised Brown that failure to

file timely 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. Wright v. Collins,

766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474

U.S. 140 (1985). Brown 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

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.