Erick Ruiz v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-2318
ERICK AGUILAR RUIZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC; NATASHA BARONE, Substitute Trustee;
HUTCHENS, SENTER, BRITTON, PA; FLICK MORTGAGE INVESTORS;
LINDSEY R. DAVIS,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
GMAC BANK,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:12-cv-00272-NCT-JEP)
Submitted: February 20, 2014 Decided: February 25, 2014
Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Erick Aguilar Ruiz, Appellant Pro Se. James Scott Flowers,
HUTCHENS, SENTER, KELLAM & PETIT, PA, Fayetteville, North
Carolina; Grady L. Balentine, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney
General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Erick Aguilar Ruiz appeals the district court’s order
adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss Ruiz’s
civil action, which was based on the foreclosure sale of his
home. 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 granting Defendants’ motions to
dismiss on various legal grounds and advised Ruiz 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). Ruiz
has waived appellate review by failing to file 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
3
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
4