Jefferson Elie v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6890
JEFFERSON ELIE,
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. Jerome B. Friedman, Senior
District Judge. (2:10-cv-00222-JBF-TEM)
Submitted: October 4, 2011 Decided: October 25, 2011
Before DUNCAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jefferson Elie, Appellant Pro Se. Leah A. Darron, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Jefferson Elie seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing as untimely 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.
2011). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied
and advised Elie 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). Elie
has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after
receiving proper notice.*
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal.
* In any event, the district court’s conclusion that Elie’s
petition was untimely is correct, and thus independently
supports dismissal of this appeal.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --