Larrietta Johnson v. US

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:15-cv-00556-RJC-DSC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999972054]. Mailed to: Johnson. [16-1777]

Appeal: 16-1777

Doc: 6

Filed: 11/21/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1777

LARRIETTA JOHNSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; ROBIN LENNOX-AUSTON; LISA WRIGHT,
Privacy
Officer;
JANET
HENDERSON;
DIANE
R.
GODMAN,
Compensation & Pension Examiner,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:15-cv-00556-RJC-DSC)

Submitted:

November 17, 2016

Decided:

November 21, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larrietta Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Tiffany M. Mallory, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1777

Doc: 6

Filed: 11/21/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Larrietta
accepting

the

Johnson

appeals

recommendation

dismissing her complaint.

the
of

district

the

court’s

magistrate

order

judge

and

The district court referred this case

to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012).
The magistrate judge recommended that the complaint be dismissed
and advised Johnson 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,

766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140 (1985).
to

file

specific

Johnson has waived appellate review by failing
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