Dante Wilson v. S. Young

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999538970-2]; denying for certificate of appealability Originating case number: 3:13-cv-00619-HEH-RCY. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999571148]. Mailed to: Dante Wilson. [15-6228]

Appeal: 15-6228

Doc: 8

Filed: 04/24/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6228

DANTE M. WILSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
S. K. YOUNG, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:13-cv-00619-HEH-RCY)

Submitted:

April 20, 2015

Before MOTZ and
Circuit Judge.

GREGORY,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

April 24, 2015

DAVIS,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dante M. Wilson, Appellant Pro Se.
Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6228

Doc: 8

Filed: 04/24/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Dante M. Wilson 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

relief

be

(2012).
denied

The

and

magistrate

advised

judge

Wilson

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

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).

(4th

Cir.

1985);

also

Wilson has waived appellate

review by failing to file objections.

Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability, 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

2