Court Opinion

ID: 4661936
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-02-22 20:00:39.659189+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:02:17.284308
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 20-2019

BELINDA HERNANDEZ, for A.I.A.,

                    Plaintiff - Appellant,

             v.

ANDREW SAUL,

                    Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Newport News. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. (4:19-cv-00106-MSD-DEM)

Submitted: February 11, 2021                                 Decided: February 22, 2021

Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Belinda Hernandez, Appellant Pro Se. Joel Eric Wilson, Assistant United States Attorney,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Belinda Hernandez appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her

complaint. 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

Hernandez 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). Hernandez 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