UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-2326
MARY PENLAND,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (6:07-cv-03977-HMH)
Submitted: March 17, 2009 Decided: March 19, 2009
Before TRAXLER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Penland, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mary Penland appeals the district court’s order
dismissing her civil action against the United States. The
district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). The magistrate judge
recommended that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice
for Penland’s failure to perfect service of process and advised
Penland that failure to file specific objections to this
recommendation would waive appellate review of a district court
order based upon the recommendation. Penland did not
specifically object to the dispositive portion of 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. United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621-22
(4th Cir. 2007); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
Penland has waived appellate review by failing to file specific
objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we
affirm the judgment of the district court. Further, we deny
Penland’s motion to void her plea agreement with the Government.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
2
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3