Cassius Jones v. Harold Clarke


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:14-cv-00306-RAJ-DEM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999587671].. [15-6034]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-6034 Doc: 15 Filed: 05/21/2015 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6034 CASSIUS L. JONES, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Department of Corrections for Virginia, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:14-cv-00306-RAJ-DEM) Submitted: May 19, 2015 Decided: May 21, 2015 Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Darryl Arthur Parker, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Steven Andrew Witmer, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 15-6034 Doc: 15 Filed: 05/21/2015 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Cassius L. Jones 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. recommended § 636(b)(1)(B) that the (2012). petition be The dismissed magistrate as judge untimely and advised Jones 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, see 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). review notice. by failing to file Cir. 1985); also Jones has waived appellate objections after receiving proper 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

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?