Helene Maria Riley v. SETH BARTLETT, IRS Field Agent

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-2235
HELENE MARIA RILEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SETH BARTLETT, IRS Field Agent,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(6:14-cv-00350-TMC)
Submitted: August 27, 2015 Decided: September 10, 2015
Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Helene Maria Riley, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen M. Wolfinger,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; George
John Conits, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Helene Maria Riley appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on her civil action against Seth Bartlett. 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 Riley that failure
to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive
appellate review of a district court order based upon the
recommendation. Riley filed no objections, and the district
court adopted the magistrate judge’s report.
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). Riley has waived appellate
review by failing to file objections after receiving proper
notice.
Accordingly, although we deny Bartlett’s motion to dismiss
because the district court extended Riley’s time to note an
appeal, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

-- 2 of 3 --

3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --