Kandance Wells v. City of Charleston ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • USCA4 Appeal: 22-1458      Doc: 10         Filed: 07/29/2022     Pg: 1 of 2
    UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 22-1458
    KANDANCE A. WELLS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    CITY OF CHARLESTON,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
    Charleston. Irene C. Berger, District Judge. (2:22-cv-00040)
    Submitted: July 26, 2022                                          Decided: July 29, 2022
    Before MOTZ, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Kandance A. Wells, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    USCA4 Appeal: 22-1458      Doc: 10         Filed: 07/29/2022     Pg: 2 of 2
    PER CURIAM:
    Kandance A. Wells appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil action.
    The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 636
    (b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised
    Wells that failure to file timely, specific 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. Martin v. Duffy, 
    858 F.3d 239
    , 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins, 
    766 F.2d 841
    , 846-47 (4th Cir. 1985); see
    also Thomas v. Arn, 
    474 U.S. 140
    , 154-55 (1985). Wells has waived appellate review by
    failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after receiving proper
    notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
    We deny Wells’ emergency motion to appoint/assign counsel and to file a formal
    brief and deny as moot Wells’ emergency motion for accelerated case processing. 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 22-1458

Filed Date: 7/29/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/1/2022