Alexis Carberry v. Darlington County School District ( 2024 )

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1853 Doc: 6 Filed: 11/21/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1853
ALEXIS CARBERRY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DARLINGTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT REPRESENTED; TIM
NEWMAN, Indv.; CARLA JEFFERSON, Indv.; BRIAN P. MURPHY, Indv.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
Hill. Jacquelyn Denise Austin, District Judge. (0:24-cv-01991-JDA)
Submitted: November 19, 2024 Decided: November 21, 2024
Before QUATTLEBAUM, RUSHING, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alexis Carberry Benson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 24-1853 Doc: 6 Filed: 11/21/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Alexis Carberry appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil complaint as
duplicative of a then-pending action. The district court referred this case to a magistrate
judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended that the
case be dismissed and advised Carberry 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. 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). Carberry 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
2