Asha Lane Gibson v. NSA

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 6:15-cv-00132-HMH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999606364]. Mailed to: Gibson. [15-1413]

Appeal: 15-1413

Doc: 13

Filed: 06/22/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1413

ASHA LANE GIBSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
NSA; DEA; FBI; IBM; CIA; NAVY,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville.
Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:15-cv-00132-HMH)

Submitted:

June 18, 2015

Decided:

June 22, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Asha Lane Gibson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1413

Doc: 13

Filed: 06/22/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Asha Lane Gibson appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on her complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown
Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971),
and the Federal Tort Claims Act.
this

case

to

a

magistrate

§ 636(b)(1)(B) (2012).

The district court referred

judge

pursuant

to

28

U.S.C.

The magistrate judge recommended that

relief be denied and advised Gibson that failure to file timely,
specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate
review of a district court order based upon the 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.
Collins,

766

F.2d

841,

845-46

(4th

Cir.

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

Wright v.
1985);

see

Gibson 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

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

2