Karen Williams v. Mrs. Scott

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-2463

KAREN WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MRS. SCOTT, Internal Revenue Agent; AL MARCELIN, Internal Revenue Agent,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:25-cv-00294-FL)

Submitted: July 16, 2026 Decided: July 20, 2026

Before WILKINSON, RICHARDSON, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Karen Williams, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM:

Karen Williams appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil action without
prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 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 the action be dismissed and advised Williams 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. 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). Williams has forfeited 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 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