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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?