Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01859/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01859-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Beza Consulting Engineers PLC.
Appellee
Beza Consulting, Inc., a Maryland Corporation

Beza Consulting, Inc., a Virginia Corporation
Appellee
Muluneh Mhirate Yadeta
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1859

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.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony J. Trenga, 

District Judge. (1:14-cv-00881-AJT-TCB)

Submitted: January 12, 2016 Decided: January 20, 2016

Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Muluneh Mhirate Yadeta, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas John McKee, 

Jr., GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP, McLean, Virginia, for Appellees.

Appeal: 15-1859 Doc: 15 Filed: 01/20/2016 Pg: 1 of 4
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1859 Doc: 15 Filed: 01/20/2016 Pg: 2 of 4
3

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 

(1985). Yadeta has waived appellate review by failing to timely 

Appeal: 15-1859 Doc: 15 Filed: 01/20/2016 Pg: 3 of 4
4

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-cv-00881-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

Appeal: 15-1859 Doc: 15 Filed: 01/20/2016 Pg: 4 of 4