Danielle Smith v. Bank of Stanly , 457 F. App'x 249 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1467
DANIELLE C. SMITH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BANK OF STANLY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:09-cv-00951-NCT-LPA)
Submitted: November 28, 2011 Decided: December 14, 2011
Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bruce M. Simpson, JAMES, MCELROY & DIEHL, PA, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Denise Smith Cline, LAW OFFICES OF
DENISE SMITH CLINE, Raleigh, North Carolina; Matthew N.
Leerberg, SMITH MOORE LEATHERWOOD LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Danielle C. Smith appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on her action alleging employment discrimination.
The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2011).
The magistrate judge recommended that the Defendant’s motion for
summary judgment be granted and that the action be dismissed,
and advised Smith that failure to file timely, specific written
objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review
of a district court order based upon the recommendation under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). We note that the magistrate judge
provided this notice despite the fact that Smith was represented
by counsel. As noted by the district court’s order accepting
the magistrate judge’s recommendation, Smith’s objections were
not specific.
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). Smith
has waived appellate review by failing to file specific
objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we
affirm the judgment of the district court.
2
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3