Case ID: f-appx_630/html/0210-01.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

BEZA CONSULTING, INC., A Virginia Corporation; Beza Consulting Engineers PLC., an Ethiopian entity, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Muluneh Mhirate YADETA, an individual, Defendant-Appellant, and Beza Consulting, Inc., A Maryland Corporation, Defendant.
    No. 15-1859.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Jan. 12, 2016.
    Decided: Jan. 20, 2016.
    Muluneh Mhirate Yadeta, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas John McKee, Jr., Greenberg Traurig, LLP, McLean, Virginia, for Ap-pellees.
    Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Muluneh Mhirate Yadeta appeals the district court’s orders accepting the recommendations of the magistrate judge and entering default judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs in this civil action alleging trademark infringement and other claims. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Yadeta does not contest the finding that he engaged in discovery violations, which was the basis for the district court’s entry of the default judgment against him, he has forfeited appellate review of that judgment.

Although Yadeta attempts to challenge the amount of the damages awarded to the Plaintiffs, the magistrate judge, in her report and recommendation addressing damages', advised Yadeta that failure to file timely 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, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Yadeta has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific objections to the amount of damages after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See Beza Consulting, Inc. v. Yadeta, No. 1:14-cv00881-AJT-TCB (E.D.Va. Mar. 27 & July 2, 2015). 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.