Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-02235/USCOURTS-ca4-14-02235-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Seth Bartlett
Appellee
Helene Maria Riley
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2235

HELENE MARIA RILEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SETH BARTLETT, IRS Field Agent,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. 

(6:14-cv-00350-TMC)

Submitted: August 27, 2015 Decided: September 10, 2015

Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Helene Maria Riley, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen M. Wolfinger, 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; George 

John Conits, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-2235 Doc: 22 Filed: 09/10/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Helene Maria Riley appeals the district court’s order 

denying relief on her civil action against Seth Bartlett. 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 Riley that failure 

to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive 

appellate review of a district court order based upon the 

recommendation. Riley filed no objections, and the district 

court adopted the magistrate judge’s report.

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). Riley has waived appellate 

review by failing to file objections after receiving proper 

notice. 

Accordingly, although we deny Bartlett’s motion to dismiss 

because the district court extended Riley’s time to note an 

appeal, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

Appeal: 14-2235 Doc: 22 Filed: 09/10/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 14-2235 Doc: 22 Filed: 09/10/2015 Pg: 3 of 3