Flournoy v. South Carolina Department of Employment & Workforce

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1148 SHANEKA SHARDAY FLOURNOY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND WORKFORCE, Office of General Counsel; EXEL INC., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (7:12-cv-03267-TMC) Submitted: June 20, 2013 Decided: June 25, 2013 Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Shaneka Sharday Flournoy, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Shaneka Sharday Flournoy appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her complaint alleging employment discrimination and wrongful denial of unemployment insurance benefits. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Flournoy that failure to file timely and 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). Flournoy has waived appellate review by failing to file 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2