Presidential Candidate Number P60005535 v. Joe Biden ( 2024 )

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1535 Doc: 8 Filed: 08/30/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1535
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE NUMBER P60005535, & Presidential
Committee/Political Action Committee/Separate Segregated Fund (SSF) Number
C00569897 d/b/a United Emrits of America a/k/a Ronald Satish Emrit,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN; HUNTER BIDEN; UNITED STATES SECRET
SERVICE; THE WHITE HOUSE, at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington,
DC 20500; CHIEF OF STAFF; ATTORNEY GENERAL MERRICK GARLAND,
at 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20530,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Columbia. Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (3:24-cv-01750-DCC)
Submitted: August 27, 2024 Decided: August 30, 2024
Before KING and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Presidential Candidate Number P60005535, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 24-1535 Doc: 8 Filed: 08/30/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Satish Emrit, who also identifies himself as Presidential Candidate Number
P60005535, appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his civil
complaint for improper venue. * The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended dismissal and
advised Emrit that failure to file timely 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. Martin v. Duffy, 858
F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846-47 (4th Cir. 1985); see
also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154-55 (1985). Emrit has forfeited appellate review by
failing to file objections to 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
*
The district court’s order is a final, appealable order because the court did not grant
Emrit leave to amend his complaint. Britt v. DeJoy, 45 F.4th 790, 796 (4th Cir. 2022) (en
banc) (order).
2