Filed: Jul. 20, 1998
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7427 BETTY J. MURPHY, Plaintiff - Appellant, and DORIS JACKSON; SUSAN E. LEE, Plaintiffs, versus JANET RENO; KATHLEEN HAWK; JACK MURRAY; MARGARET HAMBRICK; HARLEY LAPPIN, Defendants - Appellees. No. 97-7714 BETTY J. MURPHY, Plaintiff - Appellant, and DORIS JACKSON; SUSAN E. LEE, Plaintiffs, versus JANET RENO; KATHLEEN HAWK; JACK MURRAY; MARGARET HAMBRICK; HARLEY LAPPIN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the United Stat
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7427 BETTY J. MURPHY, Plaintiff - Appellant, and DORIS JACKSON; SUSAN E. LEE, Plaintiffs, versus JANET RENO; KATHLEEN HAWK; JACK MURRAY; MARGARET HAMBRICK; HARLEY LAPPIN, Defendants - Appellees. No. 97-7714 BETTY J. MURPHY, Plaintiff - Appellant, and DORIS JACKSON; SUSAN E. LEE, Plaintiffs, versus JANET RENO; KATHLEEN HAWK; JACK MURRAY; MARGARET HAMBRICK; HARLEY LAPPIN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the United State..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7427
BETTY J. MURPHY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
DORIS JACKSON; SUSAN E. LEE,
Plaintiffs,
versus
JANET RENO; KATHLEEN HAWK; JACK MURRAY;
MARGARET HAMBRICK; HARLEY LAPPIN,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 97-7714
BETTY J. MURPHY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
DORIS JACKSON; SUSAN E. LEE,
Plaintiffs,
versus
JANET RENO; KATHLEEN HAWK; JACK MURRAY;
MARGARET HAMBRICK; HARLEY LAPPIN,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior Dis-
trict Judge. (CA-96-810-5-BR3)
Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 20, 1998
Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior
Circuit Judge.
No. 97-7427 dismissed and No. 97-7714 affirmed by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Betty J. Murphy, Appellant Pro Se. Michael David Bredenberg, OF-
FICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
In appeal No. 97-7427, Betty J. Murphy appeals from the magis-
trate judge’s recommendation to dismiss this civil action based on
Murphy’s failure to exhaust her administrative remedies. We dismiss
the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the magistrate judge’s
recommendation is not an appealable order. This court may exercise
jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and
certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292
(1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan
Corp.,
337 U.S. 541 (1949). The document here appealed is neither
a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
We therefore dismiss appeal No. 97-7427 as interlocutory.
In appeal No. 97-7714, Murphy appeals from the district
court’s order dismissing her civil action. Murphy’s case was re-
ferred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)
(1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and
advised Murphy that failure to file timely objections to this rec-
ommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order
based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Murphy failed
to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.
The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge’s recom-
mendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the sub-
stance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned
that failure to object will waive appellate review. Wright v.
3
Collins,
766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas
v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140 (1985). Murphy has waived appellate review by
failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Ac-
cordingly, in No. 97-7714, we affirm the judgment of the district
court.
Because the appeal from the final judgment was consolidated
with Murphy’s interlocutory appeal and the full record is before
the court, Murphy’s motion to proceed on the full and complete rec-
ord of the district court is moot. Because the proffered documents
were not before the district court, we deny Murphy’s motion and
supplemental motion for leave to submit the recent results of her
administrative proceedings. Finally, we deny Murphy’s motion for
copies at government expense. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
No. 97-7427 - DISMISSED
No. 97-7714 - AFFIRMED
4