US v. Kevin Davis, No. 21-7129 (4th Cir. 2021)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 21-7129 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KEVIN WAYNE DAVIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:15-cr-00119-1; 2:18-cv01196) Submitted: November 18, 2021 Decided: November 22, 2021 Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin Wayne Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Kristin Faye Scott, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kevin Wayne Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Davis that failure to file timely, specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846-47 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154-55 (1985). Davis has waived appellate review by failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, dismiss the appeal, and deny Davis’ motion to assign counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 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.