Filed: Jul. 18, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1568 LATASHA BOYD, a/k/a Latesha Boyd, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BILL DIANGIKES, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (7:19-cv-01077-BHH) Submitted: July 16, 2019 Decided: July 18, 2019 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Latasha Boyd, Appellant Pro Se. Un
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1568 LATASHA BOYD, a/k/a Latesha Boyd, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BILL DIANGIKES, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (7:19-cv-01077-BHH) Submitted: July 16, 2019 Decided: July 18, 2019 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Latasha Boyd, Appellant Pro Se. Unp..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-1568
LATASHA BOYD, a/k/a Latesha Boyd,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BILL DIANGIKES,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Spartanburg. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (7:19-cv-01077-BHH)
Submitted: July 16, 2019 Decided: July 18, 2019
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Latasha Boyd, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Latasha Boyd appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil complaint for
failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2012). 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 the complaint be dismissed and advised Boyd 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. Wright v. Collins,
766
F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140 (1985). Boyd
has waived appellate review by failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s
recommendation after receiving proper notice. 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
2