Loretta Samuel v. ESPN, Inc.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:11-cv-00423-JFA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999217650]. Mailed to: Loretta and William Samuel. [13-1675]

Appeal: 13-1675

Doc: 13

Filed: 10/15/2013

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1675

LORETTA L. SAMUEL; WILLIAM R. SAMUEL,
Plaintiffs – Appellants,
v.
ESPN, INC.,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
FIFA, 8044 Zurich Switzerland; ANHEUSER-BUSCH COMPANIES,
INC., St. Louis; ADIDAS AMERICA, INC., Portland, Oregon;
HYUNDAI
MOTOR
AMERICA,
F.
Valley
Ca.;
FEDERATION
INTERNATIONALE DE FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (3:11-cv-00423-JFA)

Submitted:

September 30, 2013

Decided:

October 15, 2013

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Loretta L. Samuel, William R. Samuel, Appellants Pro Se. Tamar
Y. Duvdevani, DLA PIPER US LLP, New York, New York; Larry Dwight
Floyd, Jr., Lawrence Michael Hershon, PARKER, POE, ADAMS &

Appeal: 13-1675

Doc: 13

Filed: 10/15/2013

Pg: 2 of 4

BERNSTEIN, LLP, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 13-1675

Doc: 13

Filed: 10/15/2013

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Loretta L. and William R. Samuel appeal the district
court’s

order

accepting

the

recommendation

of

the

magistrate

judge and denying relief on the Samuels’s copyright infringement
action.
error.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
The district court referred this case to a magistrate

judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp.
2013).

The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied

and advised Plaintiffs that failure to file timely, specific
objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review
of

a

district

Despite

court

this

warning,

order

based

Plaintiffs

upon

the

failed

recommendation.

to

file

specific

objections to the magistrate judge’s 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).
Plaintiffs
failing

have

to

file

of

waived

appellate

specific

review

objections

of

after

their

claims

receiving

The
by

proper

notice.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
3

Appeal: 13-1675

legal
before

Doc: 13

contentions
the

court

Filed: 10/15/2013

Pg: 4 of 4

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

4