Chapman v. Greenville SC United States Postal Service , 701 F. App'x 269 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 17-1717
    TONYA R. CHAPMAN,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    GREENVILLE SC UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE; JENNIFER J
    ALDRICH, Asst US Atty Dep Chief Civil Div; ANN E MANDERNACH,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
    Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (6:17-cv-00556-TMC)
    Submitted: November 3, 2017                                 Decided: November 13, 2017
    Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Tonya R. Chapman, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Tonya R. Chapman seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing her
    complaint without prejudice and without issuance or service of process. 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 that Chapman’s claims be dismissed and advised
    Chapman that a failure to timely file 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).
    Chapman has waived appellate review by failing to file objections that were specific to
    the basis of the magistrate judge’s recommendation 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 before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-1717

Citation Numbers: 701 F. App'x 269

Judges: Gregory, King, Per Curiam, Thacker

Filed Date: 11/13/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024