Beza Consulting, Inc. v. Muluneh Yadeta


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999664841-2]. Originating case number: 1:14-cv-00881-AJT-TCB. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999738490]. Mailed to: Muluneh Mhirate Yadeta. [15-1859]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-1859 Doc: 15 Filed: 01/20/2016 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1859 BEZA CONSULTING, INC., A VIRGINIA CORPORATION; CONSULTING ENGINEERS PLC., an Ethiopian entity, BEZA Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. MULUNEH MHIRATE YADETA, an individual, Defendant – Appellant, and BEZA CONSULTING, INC., A MARYLAND CORPORATION, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony J. Trenga, District Judge. (1:14-cv-00881-AJT-TCB) Submitted: January 12, 2016 Decided: January 20, 2016 Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Muluneh Mhirate Yadeta, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas John McKee, Jr., GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP, McLean, Virginia, for Appellees. Appeal: 15-1859 Doc: 15 Filed: 01/20/2016 Pg: 2 of 4 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 Appeal: 15-1859 Doc: 15 Filed: 01/20/2016 Pg: 3 of 4 PER CURIAM: Muluneh Mhirate Yadeta appeals the district court’s orders accepting the recommendations of the magistrate judge and entering default judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs in this civil action alleging trademark infringement and other claims. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Yadeta does not contest the finding that he engaged in discovery violations, which was the basis for the district court’s entry of the default judgment against him, he has forfeited appellate review of that judgment. Although Yadeta attempts to challenge the amount of the damages awarded to the Plaintiffs, the magistrate judge, in her report and recommendation addressing damages, advised Yadeta that failure to file timely 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 recommendation appellate when the review parties consequences of noncompliance. of the have substance been warned of of that the Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Yadeta has waived appellate review by failing to timely 3 Appeal: 15-1859 file Doc: 15 specific Filed: 01/20/2016 objections to Pg: 4 of 4 the amount of damages after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See Beza Consulting, Inc. v. Yadeta, No. 1:14-cv-00881-AJT-TCB (E.D. Va. Mar. 27 & July 2, 2015). 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 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?