UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1740
GAIL E. PACE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CROSSMARK; DEBBIE RIDGEWAY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:10-cv-02797-HMH)
Submitted: November 17, 2011 Decided: November 22, 2011
Before KING, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gail E. Pace, Appellant Pro Se. Lucas James Asper, Thomas
Howard Keim, Jr., FORD & HARRISON, LLP, Spartanburg, South
Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gail E. Pace appeals the district court’s order
granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss her claims pursuant to
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42
U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 2003 & Supp. 2011). The
district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant
to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2011). The
magistrate judge recommended that the complaint be dismissed and
advised Pace that failure to timely file specific objections to
this recommendation would 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). Pace
has waived appellate review by failing to file specific
objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we
affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2