James Brown v. Leslie Fleming

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:15-cv-00510-REP-RCY Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000007298]. Mailed to: J Brown. [16-7271]

Appeal: 16-7271

Doc: 10

Filed: 01/20/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7271

JAMES HENRY BROWN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
LESLIE J. FLEMING,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:15-cv-00510-REP-RCY)

Submitted:

January 17, 2017

Decided:

January 20, 2017

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Henry Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Katherine Quinlan Adelfio,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7271

Doc: 10

Filed: 01/20/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
James Henry Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting

the

recommendation

of

the

magistrate

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

judge

and

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 the petition be dismissed and advised Brown that failure to
file

timely

appellate

objections

review

of

a

to

this

district

recommendation
court

order

could

based

waive

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).

Brown has waived appellate review by failing to

file objections after receiving proper notice.

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