Kathaleen Smalls v. Barack Obama
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]
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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?