Kathaleen Smalls v. Barack Obama


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:16-cv-01788-BHH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000015625]. Mailed to: Kathaleen Smalls. [16-1927]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-1927 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/02/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1927 KATHALEEN B. SMALLS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PRESIDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA; ASHTON B. CARTER, Secretary, Department of Defense; LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Department of Justice; UNITED STATES ARMY; UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS; UNITED STATES NAVY; UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (7:16-cv-01788-BHH) Submitted: January 31, 2017 Decided: February 2, 2017 Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kathaleen B. Smalls, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-1927 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/02/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Kathaleen B. Smalls appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. recommended § 636(b)(1)(B) that relief be (2012). denied The and magistrate advised judge Smalls 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). Smalls 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

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?