Belinda Slade v. Donald Slade

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999560508-2] in 15-1264, denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999560575-2] in 15-1265, denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999560581-2] in 15-1266, denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999560564-2] in 15-1267, denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999560556-2] in 15-1268. Originating case number: 1:14-cv-00968-LCB-LPA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999589519]. Mailed to: Belinda Slade. [15-1264, 15-1265, 15-1266, 15-1267, 15-1268]

Appeal: 15-1264

Doc: 12

Filed: 05/26/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1264

BELINDA SLADE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DONALD E. SLADE; YVETTE SLADE,
Defendants - Appellees.

No. 15-1265

BELINDA SLADE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SEALO MICHAEL; LAVONNE MICHAEL,
Defendants - Appellees.

No. 15-1266

BELINDA SLADE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CATHY HARRIS; SPENCE HARRIS,

Appeal: 15-1264

Doc: 12

Filed: 05/26/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 15-1267

BELINDA SLADE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THEODORE MICHAEL,
Defendant - Appellee.

No. 15-1268

BELINDA SLADE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
TRUDY MICHAEL,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
Loretta Copeland
Biggs, District Judge.
(1:14-cv-00968-LCB-LPA; 1:14-cv-00969LCB-LPA; 1:14-cv-00970-LCB-LPA; 1:14-cv-00971-LCB-LPA; 1:14-cv00973-LCB-LPA)

Submitted:

May 21, 2015

Decided:

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

2

May 26, 2015

Appeal: 15-1264

Doc: 12

Filed: 05/26/2015

Pg: 3 of 4

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Belinda Slade, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

3

Appeal: 15-1264

Doc: 12

Filed: 05/26/2015

Pg: 4 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Belinda Slade seeks to appeal the district court’s orders
denying

relief

on

her

civil

complaints.

The

district

court

referred these cases to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) (2012).
case

that

relief

be

The magistrate judge recommended in each
denied

under

28

U.S.C.

§

1915(e)(2)(B)

(2012), and advised Slade that failure to file timely, specific
objections to each recommendation could waive appellate review
of a district court order based upon that recommendation.
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, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).

Slade has waived appellate review

in

file

each

case

by

proper notice.

failing

to

objections

after

receiving

Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma

pauperis and dismiss the appeals.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions

are

adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

4