Andrivia Frances Wells v. RAY, Warden

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6712
ANDRIVIA FRANCES WELLS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
RAY, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:24-cv-00009-GMG-RWT)
Submitted: March 12, 2026 Decided: March 17, 2026
Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Andrivia Frances Wells, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Andrivia Frances Wells appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her
second amended 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. The district court referred this case to a
magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge
recommended that relief be denied and advised Wells that failure to file timely and specific
objections to this recommendation would 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). Wells has forfeited appellate review
by failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after receiving
proper notice.
Accordingly, we grant Wells’ motion to exceed length limitations for her informal
briefs, deny her motions for a certificate of appealability and permission to appeal, and
affirm the district court’s order. Wells v. Ray, No. 3:24-cv-00009-GMG-RWT
(N.D. W. Va. Apr. 1, 2025). 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.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --