The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
25-6728•Derrick Lavelle Darden v. CHADWICK DOTSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections
25-6728Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitDec 31, 2025
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6728
DERRICK LAVELLE DARDEN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
CHADWICK DOTSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Senior District Judge. (2:24-cv-00726-RBS-RJK)
Submitted: December 23, 2025 Decided: December 31, 2025
Before WILKINSON and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Derrick Lavelle Darden, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Derrick Lavelle Darden seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C. § 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 Darden 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). Darden has forfeited 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 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.