Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01413/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01413-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1413

ASHA LANE GIBSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

NSA; DEA; FBI; IBM; CIA; NAVY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (6:15-cv-00132-HMH)

Submitted: June 18, 2015 Decided: June 22, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Asha Lane Gibson, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1413 Doc: 13 Filed: 06/22/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
PER CURIAM:

Asha Lane Gibson appeals the district court’s order denying 

relief on her complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown 

Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), 

and the Federal Tort Claims Act. 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 Gibson 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). Gibson has waived 

appellate review by failing to file specific objections 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

Appeal: 15-1413 Doc: 13 Filed: 06/22/2015 Pg: 2 of 2