Regina H. Gordon v. City of Emporia

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:16-cv-00583-MHL-DJN. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000317847]. Mailed to: Gordon. [18-1131]

Appeal: 18-1131

Doc: 11

Filed: 06/25/2018

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-1131

REGINA H. GORDON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CITY OF EMPORIA; BRIAN THROWER, City Manager of Emporia VA;
NANCY TURNER, Supervisor of Family Violence Sexual Assault Unit; F.
WOODROW HARRIS, Director of Probation Services; MARY PERSON, Mayor
of Emporia,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:16-cv-00583-MHL-DJN)

Submitted: June 21, 2018

Decided: June 25, 2018

Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Regina H. Gordon, Appellant Pro Se. Jeremy David Capps, HARMAN CLAYTOR
CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, P.C., Glen Allen, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 18-1131

Doc: 11

Filed: 06/25/2018

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Regina H. Gordon 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. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended
that relief be denied and advised Gordon 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). Gordon
has waived appellate review by failing to file 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