Dorothy Jeffries v. William Chavis

Filing 920100120

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-2285

DOROTHY M. JEFFRIES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WILLIAM CHAVIS, d/b/a Cape Fear Upholstery of Fayetteville, Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:08-cv-00519-BO)

Submitted:

January 14, 2010

Decided:

January 20, 2010

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dorothy M. Jeffries, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Dorothy Jeffries appeals the district court's order The

denying relief on her personal property damage complaint.

district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) relief be (2006). and The magistrate Jeffries judge that

recommended

that

denied

advised

failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. timely, Despite this warning, Jeffries failed to make objections to the magistrate judge's

specific

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 v. warned of the 766 consequences F.2d 841, of

noncompliance.

Wright

Collins,

845-46

(4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Jeffries has waived appellate review by filing objections that were neither timely nor specific to the magistrate judge's

recommendation, after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we

deny Jeffries's motion for a transcript at government expense and affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials

before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process. AFFIRMED

3