Shavis Holloman v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6603
SHAVIS HOLLOMAN,
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. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:22-cv-00118-AWA-RJK)
Submitted: September 22, 2022 Decided: September 27, 2022
Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Shavis Holloman, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Shavis Holloman seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Holloman’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254
petition without prejudice as an unauthorized, successive § 2254 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 Holloman 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). Holloman has waived appellate review
by failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after receiving
proper notice.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability 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

-- 2 of 2 --