Dena Minton v. Miranda Richardson, No. 23-6010 (4th Cir. 2023)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-6010 DENA INEZ MINTON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. MIRANDA RICHARDSON, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:21-cv-00806-TDS-JEP) Submitted: August 29, 2023 Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dena Inez Minton, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Decided: August 31, 2023 PER CURIAM: Dena Inez Minton seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely filed, and a subsequent order denying reconsideration. 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 Minton 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). Minton has forfeited 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 also deny as moot Minton’s motion to attend hearings in this court. 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.