Harold Douglas, Jr. v. Harold Clarke, No. 14-7476 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7476 HAROLD DOUGLAS, JR., Petitioner – Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:14-cv-00018-RAJ-DEM) Submitted: December 16, 2014 Before DUNCAN Circuit Judge. and DIAZ, Circuit Decided: Judges, December 19, 2014 and DAVIS, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Harold Douglas, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Lauren Catherine Campbell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Harold court’s order petition. judge Douglas, denying Jr., relief seeks on his to appeal 28 the U.S.C. district § 2254 (2012) 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 relief be denied and advised Douglas 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 recommendation specific is objections necessary to to a preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have noncompliance. Cir. 1985); been warned of the consequences of Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Douglas has waived appellate review by failing to timely file objections. appealability, Accordingly, deny leave to we deny proceed in a certificate forma pauperis, of and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 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.
