Case ID: f-appx_530/html/0262-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Shaneka Sharday FLOURNOY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND WORKFORCE, Office of General Counsel; Exel Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-1148.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 20, 2013.
    Decided: June 25, 2013.
    Shaneka Sharday Flournoy, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Shaneka Sharday Flournoy appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her complaint alleging employment discrimination and wrongful denial of unemployment insurance benefits. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp.2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Flournoy that failure to file timely and specific 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, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Flournoy has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

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.