Robert Wilkins v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis [1000219847-2] Originating case number: 3:17-cv-00142-HEH-RCY. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000290220]. Mailed to: Robert Wilkins. [17-7614]

Appeal: 17-7614

Doc: 12

Filed: 05/08/2018

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-7614

ROBERT ALLEN WILKINS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:17-cv-00142-HEH-RCY)

Submitted: April 30, 2018

Decided: May 8, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Allen Wilkins, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-7614

Doc: 12

Filed: 05/08/2018

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Robert Allen Wilkins 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 Wilkins that failure to file timely, specific objections to
this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon
the recommendation. Although Wilkins filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s
recommendation, the district court determined that the objections were nonspecific and
tantamount to filing no objections at all, and thus did not conduct a de novo review of 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
qualify as specific, a party’s objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendations must
“reasonably . . . alert the district court of the true ground for the objection.” United
States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 622 (4th Cir. 2007); see also United States v. Benton,
523 F.3d 424, 428 (4th Cir. 2008) (same). Wilkins has waived appellate review by
failing to file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

2

Appeal: 17-7614

Doc: 12

Filed: 05/08/2018

Pg: 3 of 3

We deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 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

3