Beza Consulting, Inc. v. Muluneh Yadeta

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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