USCA4 Appeal: 22-6603 Doc: 8 Filed: 09/27/2022 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6603 Doc: 8 Filed: 09/27/2022 Pg: 2 of 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