Michael Stewart v. Harold Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [1000036116-2], denying certificate of appealability. Originating case number: 2:16-cv-00033-MSD-RJK Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000091469]. Mailed to: Michael Stewart. [17-6047]

Appeal: 17-6047

Doc: 13

Filed: 05/31/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6047

MICHAEL LYNN STEWART,
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. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:16-cv-00033-MSD-RJK)

Submitted: May 25, 2017

Decided: May 31, 2017

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Lynn Stewart, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin Hyman Katz, Assistant Attorney
General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-6047

Doc: 13

Filed: 05/31/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Michael Lynn Stewart 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 Stewart 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). Stewart
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