Rayshawn Williams v. Harold Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999892570-2]. Originating case number: 2:15-cv-00422-RBS-DEM. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999915297]. Mailed to: Rayshawn Williams. [16-6700]

Appeal: 16-6700

Doc: 9

Filed: 08/23/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6700

RAYSHAWN R. WILLIAMS,
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. (2:15-cv-00422-RBS-DEM)

Submitted:

August 18, 2016

Decided:

August 23, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rayshawn R. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Bidwell Theisen,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6700

Doc: 9

Filed: 08/23/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Rayshawn R. Williams 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.

§ 636(b)(1)(B)

(2012).

The

magistrate

judge

recommended that relief be denied and advised Williams that failure
to file timely objections to this recommendation would 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,

766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140 (1985).
to

file

Williams has waived appellate review by failing

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