Vines v. Virginia Department of Corrections - Appeal Dismissed

4th Circuit Daily Opinions

Filed March 3rd, 2026

Detected March 4th, 2026

Summary

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Clayton Vines's appeal of a district court order. The dismissal was based on Vines's failure to file timely objections to a magistrate judge's recommendation, thereby forfeiting appellate review. The unpublished opinion does not constitute binding precedent.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has dismissed the appeal filed by Clayton Vines in the case of Vines v. Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Corrections. The dismissal, issued per curiam, stems from the appellant's failure to file timely and specific objections to a magistrate judge's recommendation that his amended 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition be dismissed for lack of exhaustion. The court cited established precedent requiring such objections to preserve appellate review.

This decision means the appeal is terminated, and the underlying district court order stands. As this is an unpublished opinion, it does not set binding precedent for future cases within the Fourth Circuit. No specific compliance actions are required for regulated entities, as this pertains to an individual litigant's procedural default in a habeas corpus petition. The appellant has forfeited his right to appellate review of the substance of the magistrate judge's recommendation.

Source document (simplified)

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF AP PEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25 - 6859 CLAYTON V INES, Petitioner - Appellant, v. COMMONWEAL TH OF VIRGINIA D EPARTMENT OF C ORRECTIONS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United S tates District Court for the Eastern District of Virgi nia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judg e. (2:24 - cv - 00392 - AWA - LRL) Submitted: February 26, 202 6 Decided: March 3, 2026 Before NIEMEYER and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FL OYD, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clayton Vines, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding p recedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM: Clayton Vines seeks to appeal the district court’s order dism issing without prejudice his amended 2 8 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pu rsuant to 2 8 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate jud ge recommended that th e amended petition be dismissed for lack of ex haustion and advised Vines 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 app ellate review of the substance of that recomm endation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Martin v. Du ffy, 858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wrig ht v. Collins, 766 F.2d 84 1, 846 - 47 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154 - 55 (1985). Vines has forfeited appellate rev iew by failing to file objection s to the magistrate judge’s recom mendation after receiving proper notice. * Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument becau se the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED * After the magistrate judge issued th e report and recommendation, Vines filed a “Motion for Exception,” in which he did not object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation and seemed to agree with the magistrate judge’s exhaustion ruling. The district court found that Vines’s m otion did not constitute an ob jection to the m agistrate judge’s recommendation and denied i t as moot.