Wyvonne Jones v. Harold Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [1000027115-2] Originating case number: 2:16-cv-00032-RBS-LRL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000089106]. Mailed to: Wyvonne Jones. [17-6013]

Appeal: 17-6013

Doc: 12

Filed: 05/26/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6013

WYVONNE RONTEA JONES,
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. (2:16-cv-00032-RBS-LRL)

Submitted: May 23, 2017

Decided: May 26, 2017

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wyvonne Rontea Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Victoria Lee Johnson, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-6013

Doc: 12

Filed: 05/26/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Wyvonne Rontea Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)
petition as untimely. 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 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, 766
F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Jones has
waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.
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