UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1333
KENDA R. KIRBY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:13-cv-00850-FL)
Submitted: August 17, 2015 Decided: September 2, 2015
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kenda R. Kirby, Appellant Pro Se. Alexander McClure Peters,
Special Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kenda R. Kirby appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on her civil 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 Kirby that failure to file 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). Liberally construed, Kirby’s
objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation
specifically challenged the magistrate judge’s failure to
address her claims concerning Title IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1688 (2012), and the
recommendation to deny relief on her due process and equal
protection claims. By failing to file specific objections to
the magistrate judge’s recommendation with regard to her other
claims, after receiving proper notice, Kirby has waived
appellate review of those claims.
2
Turning to the district court’s dismissal of Kirby’s Title
IX, equal protection, and due process claims, we have reviewed
the record and discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm the judgment of the district court. Kirby v. N.C. State
Univ., No. 5:13-cv-00850-FL (E.D.N.C. Mar. 11, 2015). We deny
Kirby’s motion to allow a new issue on appeal and 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
3