Sabrina Davis v. Kia Motors of America

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 6:10-cv-02931-TMC. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998796569]. Mailed to: Sabrina Davis. [11-2410]

Appeal: 11-2410

Document: 5

Date Filed: 02/27/2012

Page: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-2410

SABRINA D. DAVIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
KIA MOTORS OF AMERICA; KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(6:10-cv-02931-TMC)

Submitted:

February 23, 2012

Decided:

February 27, 2012

Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sabrina D. Davis, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-2410

Document: 5

Date Filed: 02/27/2012

Page: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Sabrina D. Davis appeals the district court’s order
dismissing her complaint without prejudice for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.

The district court referred this case to a

magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West
2006 & Supp. 2011).

The magistrate judge recommended dismissing

the complaint and advised Davis that failure to file timely,
specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate
review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.
The
magistrate

timely

judge’s

filing

of

recommendation

specific
is

objections

necessary

to

to

a

preserve

appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when
the

parties

have

noncompliance.

been

warned

of

the

consequences

Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th

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

waived

objections

of

appellate
after

review

receiving

by

proper

failing

to

notice.

file

Davis

specific

Accordingly,

we

affirm the judgment of the district court.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

2