Jesse Williams v. Wells

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6338

JESSE WILLIAMS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WELLS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:19-cv-00244-CCE-JLW)

Submitted: May 21, 2020 Decided: May 27, 2020

Before AGEE and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jesse Williams, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM:

Jesse Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing as untimely his
28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2018) petition and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. With regard
to the dismissal order, the district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2018). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied
and advised Williams that failure to file timely, specific 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. Martin v. Duffy, 858
F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846-47 (4th Cir. 1985); see
also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154-55 (1985). Williams has waived appellate review
of the district court’s order dismissing his § 2254 petition as untimely by failing to file
objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after receiving proper notice. As to
the Rule 59(e) motion, we conclude that Williams has not made “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2018).
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