Dwight Simpkins v. Harold Clarke
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999423297-2]; denying Motion for transcript at government expense [999423302-2]; denying for certificate of appealability Originating case number: 2:13-cv-00610-RBS-LRL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999499236]. Mailed to: D. Simpkins. [14-7194]
Appeal: 14-7194
Doc: 13
Filed: 12/23/2014
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7194
DWIGHT G. SIMPKINS,
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.
Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief
District Judge. (2:13-cv-00610-RBS-LRL)
Submitted:
December 18, 2014
Decided:
December 23, 2014
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dwight G. Simpkins, Appellant Pro Se.
Steven Andrew Witmer,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 14-7194
Doc: 13
Filed: 12/23/2014
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Dwight
G.
Simpkins
seeks
to
appeal
the
district
court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)
petition, and he has filed an application to proceed in forma
pauperis, as well as a motion for a transcript at government
expense.
The district court referred this case to a magistrate
judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C) (2012).
The
magistrate judge recommended that the petition be dismissed as
untimely and advised Simpkins that the failure to file timely
specific objections to this recommendation would waive appellate
review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.
The
magistrate
timely
judge’s
filing
of
recommendation
specific
is
objections
necessary
to
to
a
preserve
appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when
the
parties
noncompliance.
have
been
warned
of
the
consequences
of
Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co.,
416 F.3d 310, 315-16 (4th Cir. 2005); Wright v. Collins, 766
F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985).
Simpkins has waived appellate
review by failing to file specific and relevant objections after
receiving
proper
notice. *
Accordingly,
*
we
deny
Simpkins’
In addition, Simpkins’ informal brief merely restates his
habeas claims and does not address the district court’s
dispositive procedural rulings.
Thus, Simpkins has also
forfeited appellate review of the dispositive rulings. See 4th
Cir. R. 34(b) (limiting review to the issues raised in the
(Continued)
2
Appeal: 14-7194
Doc: 13
Filed: 12/23/2014
application
for
in
forma
transcript
at
government
Pg: 3 of 3
pauperis
status
expense,
and
deny
motion
for
certificate
a
his
of
appealability, and dismiss the appeal.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before
contentions
this
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
decisional
process.
DISMISSED
informal brief); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241
n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (holding that failure to raise issue in
opening brief constitutes abandonment of that issue).
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?