Clayton Vines v. Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Corrections

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6859
CLAYTON VINES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF 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. (2:24-cv-00392-AWA-LRL)
Submitted: February 26, 2026 Decided: March 3, 2026
Before NIEMEYER and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Clayton Vines, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Clayton Vines seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice
his amended 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 the
amended petition be dismissed for lack of exhaustion and advised Vines 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). Vines 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
* After the magistrate judge issued the report and recommendation, Vines filed a
“Motion for Exception,” in which he did not object to the magistrate judge’s
recommendation and seemed to agree with the magistrate judge’s exhaustion ruling. The
district court found that Vines’s motion did not constitute an objection to the magistrate
judge’s recommendation and denied it as moot.

-- 2 of 2 --