Dorothy M. Jeffries v. William Chavis, d/b/a Cape Fear Upholstery of Fayetteville

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-2285
DOROTHY M. JEFFRIES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WILLIAM CHAVIS, d/b/a Cape Fear Upholstery of Fayetteville,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:08-cv-00519-BO)
Submitted: January 14, 2010 Decided: January 20, 2010
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dorothy M. Jeffries, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

PER CURIAM:
Dorothy Jeffries appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on her personal property damage complaint. The
district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). The magistrate judge
recommended that relief be denied and advised Jeffries that
failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could
waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the
recommendation. Despite this warning, Jeffries failed to make
timely, specific objections to the magistrate judge’s
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).
Jeffries has waived appellate review by filing objections that
were neither timely nor specific to the magistrate judge’s
recommendation, after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we
deny Jeffries’s motion for a transcript at government expense
and affirm the judgment of the district court.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --