Tanger Harris v. Progressive Northern Insurance

Filing 920091201

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1846

TANGER ANITA HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY; INSURANCE; TRISH CLARK; ALLISON THOMAS, Defendants - Appellees. BURNS AND BURNS

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (8:09-cv-01341-HMH)

Submitted:

November 19, 2009

Decided:

December 1, 2009

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tanger Anita Harris, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Tanger Anita Harris appeals the district court's order dismissing her cause of action without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court referred this

case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied

and advised Harris that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the to recommendation. to the Despite this

warning,

Harris

failed

object

magistrate

judge's

recommendation. The magistrate timely filing of specific is objections to to a

judge's

recommendation

necessary

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 Harris

Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).

has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we

affirm the judgment of the district court. Before this court, Harris also moves to seal this matter, in its entirety, for a transcript at the Government's expense, and to "prosecute" Defendant Progressive Northern Insurance. 2 In

her motion to seal this matter, Harris fails to comply with the requirements of 4th Cir. R. 25(c). seal. Thus, we deny her motion to

Additionally, the docket does not reflect any hearing for Thus, we deny Harris' Finally,

which a transcript could be prepared.

motion for a transcript at the Government's expense.

because Harris asserts injury caused by Defendant Progressive Northern Insurance for the first time on appeal, we conclude that such claim is procedurally defaulted and deny relief.

Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993); Nat'l Wildlife Fed. v. Hanson, 859 F.2d 313, 318 (4th Cir. 1988). 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

would

process. AFFIRMED

3