Samuel Smith v. Progressive Insurance Company


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:17-cv-01767-HMH. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000268491]. Mailed to: Samuel Smith, Sarah Smith. [17-2302]

Download PDF
Appeal: 17-2302 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/02/2018 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2302 SAMUEL L. SMITH; SARAH A. SMITH, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE COMPANY; STATE FARM LIFE GROUP; NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; CARL NICHOLAS WALKER; LAKETIA NATISHA BOYD; LUCILLE B. WALKER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:17-cv-01767-HMH) Submitted: March 29, 2018 Decided: April 2, 2018 Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel L. Smith, Sarah A. Smith, Appellants Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 17-2302 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/02/2018 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Samuel L. Smith and Sarah A. Smith appeal the district court’s order dismissing their civil complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 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 relief be denied and advised the Smiths 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). The Smiths have 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?