Court Opinion

ID: 9365013
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-20 21:00:42.340335+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:43.156577
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2093      Doc: 14         Filed: 01/19/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-2093

        KANDANCE A. WELLS,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        CHARLESTON AREA MEDICAL CENTER SYSTEM,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
        Charleston. Irene C. Berger, District Judge. (2:22-cv-00370)

        Submitted: January 17, 2023                                       Decided: January 19, 2023

        Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Kandance A. Wells, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2093         Doc: 14      Filed: 01/19/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Kandance A. Wells appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil complaint

        under 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 that relief be

        denied and advised Wells 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). Although Wells received proper notice

        and filed objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after the district court

        dismissed her complaint, she has waived appellate review because the objections were

        untimely. 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