Sherman B. Jenkins v. Harold W. Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999443992-2]; denying for certificate of appealability Originating case number: 2:13-cv-00564-AWA-TEM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999499190]. Mailed to: S. Jenkins. [14-7256]

Appeal: 14-7256

Doc: 7

Filed: 12/23/2014

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7256

SHERMAN B. JENKINS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director,
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-00564-AWA-TEM)

Submitted:

December 18, 2014

Decided:

December 23, 2014

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sherman B. Jenkins, Appellant Pro Se.
Benjamin Hyman Katz,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7256

Doc: 7

Filed: 12/23/2014

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Sherman

B.

Jenkins

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)
petition.
judge

The district court referred this case to a magistrate

pursuant

to

28

U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B)

(2012).

The

magistrate judge recommended that the petition be dismissed and
advised Jenkins 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.
Cir.

1985);

Jenkins

also

waived

objections.

warned

Thomas v.

the

deny

Arn,

consequences

leave

to

474

review

appellate

Accordingly,

appealability,

of

of

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

has

been

by

we

deny

proceed

in

U.S.

140

failing

a

(1985).
to

certificate

forma

pauperis,

file
of
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
2