Juan Ramirez v. Erik Hooks

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied [1000258767-2] Originating case number: 1:17-cv-01157-CCE-LPA. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000281292]. Mailed to: Juan Ramirez. [18-6180]

Appeal: 18-6180

Doc: 10

Filed: 04/24/2018

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6180

JUAN CARLOS OLIVO RAMIREZ,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ERIK A. HOOKS,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:17-cv-01157-CCE-LPA)

Submitted: April 19, 2018

Decided: April 24, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Juan Carlos Olivo Ramirez, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 18-6180

Doc: 10

Filed: 04/24/2018

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Juan Carlos Olivo Ramirez seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the
magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing without prejudice Ramirez’s 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 (2012) petition as successive and unauthorized. 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 dismissal of the petition, and Ramirez was warned 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). Ramirez
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