Dwayne Hines v. Harold Clarke, No. 22-7001 (4th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-7001 DWAYNE DOMINIC HINES, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (2:20-cv-00522-RGD-LRL) Submitted: April 25, 2023 Decided: April 27, 2023 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, THACKER, Circuit Judge, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dwayne Dominic Hines, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Dwayne Dominic Hines seeks to appeal the district court’s dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended denying relief and advised Hines 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). Hines 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 and dismiss the appeal. We deny Hines’ motion to appoint 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.
