MaKesha Smith v. St. Francis Hospital ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 14-1207
    MAKESHA MICHELLE SMITH,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    ST. FRANCIS HOSPITAL; JOANN TAYLOR; SHAUNA GREEN,
    Defendants - Appellees,
    and
    ANTHONY J. MARCAVAGE,
    Defendant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
    (6:12-cv-02533-TMC)
    Submitted:   July 30, 2014                 Decided:   August 7, 2014
    Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    MaKesha Michelle Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Allen Bright,
    OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Greenville, South
    Carolina, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    MaKesha       Michelle   Smith     appeals    the    district      court’s
    order denying relief on her civil complaint.                    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
    relief be denied and advised Smith that failure to file timely
    objections to this recommendation would 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).                        Smith
    has waived appellate review by failing to timely file objections
    after receiving proper notice.                See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (d).
    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: 14-1207

Judges: Motz, Gregory, Keenan

Filed Date: 8/7/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024