Negash Malede v. Eric Wilson, No. 12-6295 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6295 NEGASH MALEDE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. ERIC WILSON, Warden, FCI Petersburg, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:11-cv-00322-AWA-TEM) Submitted: April 26, 2012 Decided: May 1, 2012 Before GREGORY, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Negash Malede, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Lynn Watt, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Negash Malede, a federal prisoner convicted under the District of Columbia Code, seeks to appeal the district court s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2011) petition. justice or The order is not appealable unless a circuit judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006); Madley v. U.S. Parole Comm n, 278 F.3d 1306, 1309-10 (D.C. Cir. 2002). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. (2006). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this jurists would reasonable standard find by that demonstrating the district that court s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). denies relief demonstrate both on procedural that the When the district court grounds, dispositive the prisoner procedural ruling must is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 2 Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Malede has not made the requisite showing. * Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 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. DISMISSED * In particular, we note that the timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation. United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621-22 (4th Cir. 2007); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985). Because Malede, a pro se litigant, received notice of the consequences of a failure to object to the magistrate judge s report and yet failed to do so, he has waived appellate review. Ids. 3
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.
