Carolyn Reed-Smith v. Spartanburg County School District 7

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1818
CAROLYN E. REED-SMITH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SPARTANBURG COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT SEVEN,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. J. Michelle Childs, District
Judge. (7:11-cv-00970-JMC)
Submitted: November 20, 2012 Decided: November 29, 2012
Before AGEE, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carolyn E. Reed-Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Carlos C. Johnson,
Kenneth William Nettles, Jr., LYLES DARR & CLARK, LLP,
Spartanburg, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Carolyn E. Reed-Smith appeals the district court’s
order denying relief on her civil action alleging retaliation
and race and sex discrimination claims under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to
2000e-17 (West 2003 & Supp. 2012), and violations of several
other federal statutes and constitutional provisions. The
district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant
to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2012). The
magistrate judge recommended that the district court grant
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining claims for relief
asserted under state law. While represented by counsel, Reed-
Smith filed objections to the magistrate judge’s
recommendations. The district court adopted the recommendations
and denied relief to Reed-Smith.
A counseled litigant who fails to file specific
written objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendations
waives her right to appellate review of a district court order
adopting the recommendations. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841,
845 (4th Cir. 1985) (noting the “general rule that a party who
fails to object to a magistrate[] [judge’s] report is barred
from appealing the judgment of a district court adopting the
magistrate[] [judge’s] findings”); see United States v. Benton,
2
523 F.3d 424, 428 (4th Cir. 2008) (holding that a “general
objection” to a magistrate judge’s finding is insufficient to
preserve a claim for appellate review). Reed-Smith has waived
her right to appellate review of the district court’s order by
failing to file specific objections to the magistrate judge’s
recommendations. *
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
*
On appeal, Reed-Smith appears to contend that we should
exercise our discretion to permit her appeal under the so-called
“interests of justice” exception to the waiver rule recognized
by the Supreme Court. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985).
However, because Reed-Smith does not suggest any reason for
excusing the failure of her counsel to file specific objections
to the magistrate judge’s recommendations, no “interests of
justice” exception is warranted in this case.
3