James McBride v. Commonwealth of Virginia, No. 11-6090 (4th Cir. 2011)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6090 JAMES H. MCBRIDE, Plaintiff Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Defendant Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (3:09-cv-00716-JRS) Submitted: March 31, 2011 Decided: April 6, 2011 Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James H. McBride, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James H. McBride appeals the district court s order denying his motion to appoint McBride new counsel in a criminal case pending in state court. The district court abstained from deciding the case, pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). * The Younger doctrine permits federal courts to refrain from hearing cases that would interfere with a pending state criminal proceeding. (4th Cir. 2007). Martin v. Stewart, 499 F.3d 360, 363 We review for abuse of discretion a district court s decision to abstain under Younger, Laurel Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Wilson, 519 F.3d 156, 161 (4th Cir. 2008), and find no abuse of discretion here. of the district court. Accordingly, we affirm the decision We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED * Although McBride did not file timely objections to the magistrate judge s report and recommendation, he did pursue the alternate option suggested by the magistrate judge of filing an amended complaint. Thus, McBride s failure to file objections did not result in a waiver of his right to appellate review. cf. United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621-22 (4th Cir. 2007) (holding a party waives appellate review by failing to file timely and specific objections to a magistrate judge s report). 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.