Barbara Curry v. Adam Steifer

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999769617-2] Originating case number: 1:15-cv-01107-CCE-LPA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999871449].. [16-1141]

Appeal: 16-1141

Doc: 10

Filed: 06/28/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1141

BARBARA LINDSEY CURRY,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
ADAM STEIFER; MATTHEW FLATLOW,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:15-cv-01107-CCE-LPA)

Submitted:

June 23, 2016

Decided:

June 28, 2016

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Barbara Lindsey Curry, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1141

Doc: 10

Filed: 06/28/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Barbara Lindsey Curry seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint.
The

district

court

referred

this

case

to

a

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012).

magistrate

judge

The magistrate

judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Curry 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 appellate review
of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have
been warned of the consequences of noncompliance.

Wright v.

Collins,

see

766

F.2d

841,

845-46

(4th

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

Cir.

1985);

also

Curry has waived appellate

review by failing to file specific objections after receiving
proper notice.

Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma

pauperis and dismiss the appeal.
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

2