Court Opinion

ID: 9831352
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:01:01.796953+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:24.573321
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2194      Doc: 43         Filed: 08/31/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-2194

        DENISE ERNUL,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        APPALACHIAN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (6:21-cv-01842-TMC)

        Submitted: August 29, 2023                                        Decided: August 31, 2023

        Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Howard E. Sutter III, SUTTER LAW FIRM, LLC, Easley, South Carolina,
        for Appellant. Derwood L. Aydlette, III, GIGNILLIAT, SAVITZ & BETTIS, L.L.P.,
        Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2194      Doc: 43         Filed: 08/31/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Denise Ernul appeals the district court’s order granting the defendant’s motion to

        dismiss and dismissing Ernul’s employment discrimination 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 the defendant’s motion to dismiss be granted and that

        Ernul’s complaint be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, 41(b), after finding that

        Ernul had not participated in discovery in good faith and had failed to comply with the

        magistrate judge’s discovery orders. Because Ernul did not file objections to the magistrate

        judge’s recommendation, the district court reviewed it for clear error only and, discerning

        none, adopted it. We affirm.

               The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is

        necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation. See

        Solis v. Malkani, 638 F.3d 269, 273-74 (4th Cir. 2011) (recognizing that failure to object

        to magistrate judge’s recommendation forfeits appeal and applying forfeiture rule despite

        magistrate judge’s failure to warn counsel about consequences of not objecting); Wells v.

        Shriners Hosp., 109 F.3d 198, 199-201 (4th Cir. 1997) (same). Because Ernul failed to

        object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, she has forfeited appellate review of the

        district court’s order adopting that recommendation. *

               *
                  Although this forfeiture rule is subject to exceptions, see Arakas v. Comm’r, Soc.
        Sec. Admin., 983 F.3d 83, 105 (4th Cir. 2020), Ernul does not argue on appeal that she
        satisfies any of those exceptions.

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2194      Doc: 43         Filed: 08/31/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

               We thus affirm the district court’s order. 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