Court Opinion

ID: 9912630
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-22 21:00:41.046279+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:01:15.017258
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1964      Doc: 9        Filed: 12/21/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1964

        MARY E. ANDERSON,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        FIRST CITIZENS BANK,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Columbia. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (3:22-cv-02195-MGL)

        Submitted: December 19, 2023                                Decided: December 21, 2023

        Before HARRIS, QUATTLEBAUM, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Mary E. Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Buckley, FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP,
        Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1964      Doc: 9         Filed: 12/21/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Mary Anderson appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil action. The

        district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

        The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Anderson 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. Martin v. Duffy, 858

        F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846-47 (4th Cir. 1985); see

        also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154-55 (1985). Anderson has waived appellate review

        by failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation 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