Patricia Sawasky v. Brian Brian
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
PATRICIA SAWASKY, Plaintiff Appellant, v. BRIAN WALLACE BRIAN, Defendant Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (6:09-cv-00580-HFF)
September 10, 2009
September 14, 2009
Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Patricia Sawasky, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Patricia Sawasky, who proceeds in forma pauperis,
appeals the district court's order dismissing her action against Defendant. The district court referred this case to a
magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). After conducting a 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (2006) review, the
magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Sawasky that failure to file timely objections to this
recommendation would waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning,
Sawasky failed to file specific objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation. * The magistrate timely filing of specific is objections to to a
appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been v. warned of the 766 consequences F.2d 841, of
(4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Sawasky has waived appellate review by failing to file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we
affirm the district court's judgment. Instead, Sawasky filed a "Motion to Change the Judge," in which she summarily stated that she disagreed with the magistrate judge's recommendation.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?