Constance Adamson v. Socialist Corporation of KY

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 6:14-cv-03605-HMH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999480910].. [14-2028]

Appeal: 14-2028

Doc: 7

Filed: 11/24/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2028

CONSTANCE HAUCK ADAMSON, a/k/a Constance S. Hauck,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SOCIALIST CORPORATION OF KY,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville.
Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:14-cv-03605-HMH)

Submitted:

November 20, 2014

Decided:

November 24, 2014

Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Constance Hauck Adamson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-2028

Doc: 7

Filed: 11/24/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Constance Hauck Adamson appeals the district court’s
order dismissing her civil complaint without prejudice. *

The

district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant
to

28

U.S.C.

recommended
failure

§ 636(b)(1)(B)

that

to

relief

file

be

(2012).
denied

timely,

The

and

magistrate

advised

specific

judge

Adamson

objections

that

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.
Cir.

1985);

been

warned

of

the

consequences

of

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

see

also

Thomas

v.

Arn,

474

U.S.

140

(1985).

Adamson has waived appellate review by failing to file specific
objections

after

receiving

proper

notice.

Accordingly,

we

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

contentions

are

adequately

*

presented

in

the

materials

The district court’s order is final and appealable. See
Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d
1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993).

2

Appeal: 14-2028

before

Doc: 7

this

Filed: 11/24/2014

court

and

Pg: 3 of 3

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

3