UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6181
JOAQUIN ALBERTO RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of 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. (2:12-cv-00280-MSD-DEM)
Submitted: May 8, 2013 Decided: June 6, 2013
Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joaquin Alberto Rodriguez, Appellant Pro Se. James Milburn
Isaacs, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Joaquin Alberto Rodriguez seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)
petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate
judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp.
2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied
and advised Rodriguez that failure to file timely objections to
the findings and recommendations set forth in the report would
waive appellate review of a district court order based upon such
findings and recommendations.
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).
Rodriguez has waived appellate review by failing to file
objections in the district court. * Accordingly, we deny a
*
We have not construed Rodriguez’s notice of appeal from
the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation filed in this
Court as objections, because he did not address the magistrate
judge’s findings and recommendations or identify any issues for
further review in the district court, and he does not challenge
the district court’s finding that he failed to file objections.
2
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
3