UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6513
NATHAN CHAMBLISS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of
Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen,
District Judge. (2:15-cv-00092-AWA-RJK)
Submitted: October 14, 2016 Decided: October 25, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nathan Chambliss, Appellant Pro Se. John Watkins Blanton,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Nathan Chambliss seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition
and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. The district
court referred the § 2254 petition to a magistrate judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate
judge recommended that the petition be denied and dismissed with
prejudice based on unexcused procedural default and advised
Chambliss that the failure to file objections to its findings
and recommendation in a timely fashion would result in waiver of
appellate review of a district court order based on such
findings and recommendation. Chambliss filed an objection to
the magistrate judge’s recommendation, and the district court
overruled the objection, adopted the magistrate judge’s
recommendation, granted Respondent’s motion to dismiss, and
denied and dismissed the § 2254 petition.
The district court’s orders denying § 2254 relief and
denying the Rule 59(e) motion are not appealable unless a
circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of
appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)
(2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a
prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that
2
reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s
assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court
denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must
demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is
debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the
denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.
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. Diamond v.
Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315-16
(4th Cir. 2005); Wells v. Shriners Hosp., 109 F.3d 198, 201
(4th Cir. 1997); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46
(4th Cir. 1985). Chambliss has waived appellate review of the
district court’s order denying and dismissing his § 2254
petition on the basis of unexcused procedural default.
Turning to the district court’s denial of the Rule 59(e)
motion, we have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Chambliss has not made the requisite showing warranting the
issuance of a certificate of appealability. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
3
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
4