Sherman Jenkins v. Harold Clarke, No. 14-7256 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7256 SHERMAN B. JENKINS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:13-cv-00564-AWA-TEM) Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: December 23, 2014 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sherman B. Jenkins, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin Hyman Katz, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Sherman B. Jenkins seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. judge The district court referred this case to a magistrate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that the petition be dismissed and advised Jenkins that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The magistrate timely judge’s filing of specific recommendation is objections necessary to to a preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have noncompliance. Cir. 1985); Jenkins also waived objections. warned Thomas v. the deny Arn, consequences leave to 474 review appellate Accordingly, appealability, of of Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th see has been by we deny proceed in U.S. 140 failing a (1985). to certificate forma pauperis, file of 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 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.