Dwight Simpkins v. Harold Clarke, No. 14-7194 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7194 DWIGHT G. SIMPKINS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia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. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (2:13-cv-00610-RBS-LRL) Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: December 23, 2014 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dwight G. Simpkins, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew Witmer, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Dwight G. Simpkins seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition, and he has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, as well as a motion for a transcript at government expense. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that the petition be dismissed as untimely and advised Simpkins that the failure to file timely specific objections to this recommendation would waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The magistrate timely judge’s filing of recommendation specific is objections necessary to to a preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties noncompliance. have been warned of the consequences of Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315-16 (4th Cir. 2005); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). Simpkins has waived appellate review by failing to file specific and relevant objections after receiving proper notice. * Accordingly, * we deny Simpkins’ In addition, Simpkins’ informal brief merely restates his habeas claims and does not address the district court’s dispositive procedural rulings. Thus, Simpkins has also forfeited appellate review of the dispositive rulings. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (limiting review to the issues raised in the (Continued) 2 application for in forma transcript at government pauperis status expense, and deny motion for certificate a his of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. DISMISSED informal brief); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (holding that failure to raise issue in opening brief constitutes abandonment of that issue). 3