UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-2308

GWEN HURT, 

Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

BANK OF AMERICA BAC HOME LOAN SERVICING, LP; RECONTRUST

COMPANY, NA; ALG TRUSTEE LLC; DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST 

COMPANY, 

Defendants - Appellees, 

and 

FIRST FRANKLIN MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, 

Defendant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior

District Judge. (3:12-cv-00184-REP-DJN) 

Submitted: February 19, 2013 Decided: February 26, 2013

Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Gwen Hurt, Appellant Pro Se. Catherine Bobick, Jacob Scott 

Woody, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Charlottesville, Virginia; Robert 

William Loftin, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia; Dean L.
2

Robinson, ATLANTIC LAW GROUP, LLC, Leesburg, Virginia, for 

Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
3

PER CURIAM: 

Gwen Hurt appeals from the district court’s order 

denying relief on her civil action. The district court referred 

this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2012). The magistrate judge 

recommended that the district court grant the motions to dismiss 

Hurt’s amended complaint, deny Hurt’s self-styled “Motion 

Demurrer for Non Consent and Objections,” and deny as moot 

Hurt’s motions seeking injunctive relief, a temporary 

restraining order, and to strike the motions to dismiss her 

original complaint. The magistrate judge also advised Hurt that 

failure to file objections to this recommendation in a timely 

manner could bar appellate review of a district court order 

based on the recommendation. 

The district court adopted the recommendation, granted 

the motions to dismiss Hurt’s amended complaint, denied Hurt’s 

Motion Demurrer, dismissed the amended complaint, and denied as 

moot Hurt’s motions for injunctive relief and a temporary 

restraining order. The court also denied Hurt’s motions to 

strike the motions to dismiss her original complaint, denied as 

moot Hurt’s motion for a restraining order, denied as moot 

Hurt’s motions to amend and correct the spelling of a 

defendant’s name, and denied as moot the motions to dismiss 

Hurt’s original complaint. The court further denied Hurt’s 
4

self-styled “Affidavit of Fact and Motion for Disqualification 

of Judge” and denied as moot Hurt’s motions for summary judgment 

and default judgment. We affirm. 

A litigant who fails to file specific written 

objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendations waives her 

right to appellate review of a district court order adopting the 

recommendations. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845 (4th Cir. 

1985) (noting the “general rule that a party who fails to object 

to a magistrate[] [judge’s] report is barred from appealing the 

judgment of a district court adopting the magistrate[] [judge’s] 

findings”); see United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 428 

(4th Cir. 2008) (holding that a “general objection” to a 

magistrate judge’s finding is insufficient to preserve a claim 

for appellate review). Hurt has waived her right to appellate 

review of the district court’s rulings granting the motions to 

dismiss the amended complaint, denying the Motion Demurrer, 

dismissing the amended complaint, and denying as moot the 

motions for injunctive relief and a temporary restraining order 

by failing to file specific written objections to the magistrate 

judge’s report in a timely manner. 

Next, on appeal, we confine our review to the issues 

raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). 

Because Hurt’s informal brief does not challenge the district 

court’s rulings denying her motions to strike the motions to 
5

dismiss her original complaint, denying as moot her motion for a 

restraining order, denying as moot her motions to amend and 

correct the spelling of a defendant’s name, denying as moot the 

motions to dismiss her original complaint, and denying her 

Affidavit of Fact and Motion for Disqualification of Judge, Hurt 

has forfeited appellate review of those rulings. 

Finally, with respect to the district court’s denial 

as moot of Hurt’s motions for summary judgment and default 

judgment, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 

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