Court Opinion

ID: 9458745
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 21:00:32.282333+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:41:39.239911
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1088      Doc: 12         Filed: 08/03/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1088

        EKOKO K. AVOKI; FRANCISCO K. AVOKI,

                            Plaintiffs - Appellants,

                     v.

        CITY OF CHESTER, SC; POLICE OF CHESTER SC; PTL COVINGTON,
        (individually); DOE I-XXX,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
        Hill. Sherri A. Lydon, District Judge. (0:17-cv-01141-SAL)

        Submitted: July 27, 2023                                          Decided: August 3, 2023

        Before AGEE, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Ekoko K. Avoki, Francisco K. Avoki, Appellants Pro Se. William Henry Davidson, II,
        DAVIDSON, WREN & DEMASTERS, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1088       Doc: 12          Filed: 08/03/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Francisco and Ekoko Avoki (“the Avokis”) appeal the district court’s orders

        adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendations and granting Defendant summary

        judgment in the Avokis’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. As to the first of the dispositive orders,

        which was entered on March 6, 2020, we have reviewed the Avokis’ arguments on appeal

        in conjunction with the record and discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the

        district court’s order, which granted Defendants partial summary judgment. Avoki v. City

        of Chester, S.C., No. 0:17-cv-01141-SAL (D.S.C. Mar. 6, 2020).

               The Avokis also challenge the district court’s later order, entered on January 5,

        2023, which granted Defendants summary judgment on the Avokis’ Fourth Amendment

        and retaliation claims. 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 on these

        claims be denied and advised the Avokis 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

               *
                  The Avokis assign error to the district court referring their pro se civil action to a
        magistrate judge because they did not consent to adjudication by a magistrate judge. We
        discern no error, see Kerr v. Marshall Univ. Bd. of Governors, 824 F.3d 62, 72 (4th Cir.
        2016) (explaining that the Federal Magistrate’s Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), “permits a district
        court to assign any pretrial matter to a magistrate judge”), and further observe that the
        district judge properly reviewed de novo those aspects of the magistrate judge’s first report
        to which the Avokis filed specific objections, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

                                                       2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1088         Doc: 12      Filed: 08/03/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        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). The Avokis have forfeited appellate

        review of this order by failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation

        after receiving proper notice and an extension of time for filing their objections.

        Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

               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

                                                    3