Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-01769/USCOURTS-ca4-19-01769-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cynthia C. Holmes
Appellant
Thomas E. Price
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-1769

CYNTHIA HOLMES, a/k/a C. Holmes, a/k/a Cynthia Holmes, M.D.,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

THOMAS E. PRICE, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services 

(HHS),

 Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Charleston. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (2:17-cv-02491-BHH)

Submitted: January 23, 2020 Decided: January 27, 2020

Before WYNN, DIAZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cynthia C. Holmes, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-1769 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/27/2020 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM: 

Cynthia Holmes appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of 

the magistrate judge and granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 12(b)(1) and for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, and a subsequent 

order denying reconsideration. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2018). The magistrate judge recommended granting 

the motion and advised Holmes that failure to file timely specific objections to the 

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. See United States v. 

Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621-22 (4th Cir. 2007); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 

154-55 (1985). Although Holmes filed objections to the magistrate judge’s 

recommendation, she has waived appellate review because the objections were neither 

timely nor specific. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. 

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

USCA4 Appeal: 19-1769 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/27/2020 Pg: 2 of 2