Helene Maria Riley v. Seth Bartlett

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to dismiss appeal [999482918-2] Originating case number: 6:14-cv-00350-TMC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999657324]. Mailed to: Riley. [14-2235]

Appeal: 14-2235

Doc: 22

Filed: 09/10/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2235

HELENE MARIA RILEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SETH BARTLETT, IRS Field Agent,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(6:14-cv-00350-TMC)

Submitted:

August 27, 2015

Before GREGORY
Circuit Judge.

and

SHEDD,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

September 10, 2015

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Helene Maria Riley, Appellant Pro Se.
Gretchen M. Wolfinger,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; George
John Conits, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-2235

Doc: 22

Filed: 09/10/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Helene

Maria

Riley

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

denying relief on her civil action against Seth Bartlett.

The

district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant
to

28

U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B)

(2012).

The

magistrate

judge

recommended that relief be denied and advised Riley that failure
to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive
appellate

review

recommendation.

of

a

district

court

order

based

upon

the

Riley filed no objections, and the district

court adopted the magistrate judge’s report.
The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate
judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review
of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have
been warned of the consequences of noncompliance.

Wright v.

Collins,

see

766

F.2d

841,

845-46

(4th

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
review

by

failing

to

file

Cir.

1985);

also

Riley has waived appellate

objections

after

receiving

proper

notice.
Accordingly, although we deny Bartlett’s motion to dismiss
because

the

appeal,

we

dispense

district
affirm

with

court

the

oral

extended

judgment

argument

of

Riley’s
the

because

2

time

district
the

facts

to

note

court.
and

an
We

legal

Appeal: 14-2235

Doc: 22

contentions

are

Filed: 09/10/2015

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3