Court Opinion

ID: 9929736
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-03 21:00:51.434362+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:41:57.214867
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2063      Doc: 9         Filed: 02/02/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-2063

        RONALD SATISH EMRIT,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        THE GRAMMY AWARDS ON CBS, d/b/a The Recording Academy/National
        Academy or Recording Arts and Sciences, (NARAS),

                             Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (5:23-cv-00499-M-RJ)

        Submitted: January 30, 2024                                       Decided: February 2, 2024

        Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Ronald Satish Emrit, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-2063         Doc: 9     Filed: 02/02/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Ronald Satish Emrit appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice

        his civil complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The district court referred this

        case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge

        recommended dismissal and advised Emrit 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. 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). Emrit has forfeited 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