748 Fed.Appx. 547 (4th Cir. 2019), 18-7338, Copeland v. Clarke

Docket Nº:18-7338
Citation:748 Fed.Appx. 547
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM:
Party Name:Sentrell Levert COPELAND, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
Attorney:Sentrell Levert Copeland, Appellant Pro Se.
Judge Panel:Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Case Date:January 23, 2019
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Page 547

748 Fed.Appx. 547 (4th Cir. 2019)

Sentrell Levert COPELAND, Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

Harold W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 18-7338

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

January 23, 2019

Submitted: January 17, 2019

UNPUBLISHED

Editorial Note:

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)

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)

Sentrell Levert Copeland, Appellant Pro Se.

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

OPINION

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Page 548

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, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (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

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP