Court Opinion

ID: 4418033
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-07-18 19:00:22.071314+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:46.833375
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 19-1566

LATASHA BOYD,

                    Plaintiff - Appellant,

             v.

UNITED STATES,

                    Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Spartanburg. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (7:19-cv-00376-BHH)

Submitted: July 16, 2019                                          Decided: July 18, 2019

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Latasha Boyd, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Latasha Boyd appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice her

civil complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii) (2012). * The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that

the complaint be dismissed and advised Boyd 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. Wright v. Collins, 766

F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Boyd

has waived appellate review by failing to file specific objections 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

       *
        Because “the grounds of the dismissal make clear that no amendment could cure
the defects in [Boyd’s] case,” the district court’s order in final and appealable. Goode v.
Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation
marks omitted).

                                              2