Alex Dinkins v. Harold Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999482234-2] Originating case number: 2:13-cv-00517-AWA-LRL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999530018]. Mailed to: Dinkins. [14-7223]

Appeal: 14-7223

Doc: 12

Filed: 02/18/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7223

ALEX M. DINKINS,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Arenda L. Wright Allen,
District Judge. (2:13-cv-00517-AWA-LRL)

Submitted:

February 12, 2015

Decided:

February 18, 2015

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alex M. Dinkins, Appellant Pro Se. Rosemary Virginia Bourne,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7223

Doc: 12

Filed: 02/18/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Alex

Dinkins

appeals

the

district

court’s

dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.

order

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 Dinkins that failure to file
timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate
review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.
The
magistrate

timely

judge’s

filing

of

specific

recommendation

is

objections

necessary

to

to

a

preserve

appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when
the

parties

have

noncompliance.

been

warned

of

the

consequences

Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th

Cir. 1985); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
waived

of

appellate

review

receiving proper notice.

by

failing

to

file

Dinkins has

objections

after

Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed

in forma pauperis and affirm the judgment of the district court.
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.

AFFIRMED

2