SMITH v. ST. FRANCIS HOSPITAL, 14-1207. (2014)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20140807067
Visitors: 11
Filed: Aug. 07, 2014
Latest Update: Aug. 07, 2014
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM. MaKesha Michelle Smith appeals the district court's order denying relief on her civil complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Smith that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation would waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the r
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM. MaKesha Michelle Smith appeals the district court's order denying relief on her civil complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Smith that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation would waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the re..
More
UNPUBLISHED
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
MaKesha Michelle Smith appeals the district court's order denying relief on her civil complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Smith that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation would 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. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Smith has waived appellate review by failing to timely file objections after receiving proper notice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (d). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district 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.
AFFIRMED.
Source: Leagle
