Loretta L. Samuel; William R. Samuel v. Espn, Inc.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1675
LORETTA L. SAMUEL; WILLIAM R. SAMUEL,
Plaintiffs – Appellants,
v.
ESPN, INC.,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
FIFA, 8044 Zurich Switzerland; ANHEUSER-BUSCH COMPANIES,
INC., St. Louis; ADIDAS AMERICA, INC., Portland, Oregon;
HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, F. Valley Ca.; FEDERATION
INTERNATIONALE DE FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (3:11-cv-00423-JFA)
Submitted: September 30, 2013 Decided: October 15, 2013
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Loretta L. Samuel, William R. Samuel, Appellants Pro Se. Tamar
Y. Duvdevani, DLA PIPER US LLP, New York, New York; Larry Dwight
Floyd, Jr., Lawrence Michael Hershon, PARKER, POE, ADAMS &

-- 1 of 4 --

2
BERNSTEIN, LLP, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Loretta L. and William R. Samuel appeal the district
court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge and denying relief on the Samuels’s copyright infringement
action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. The district court referred this case to a magistrate
judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp.
2013). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied
and advised Plaintiffs that failure to file timely, specific
objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review
of a district court order based upon the recommendation.
Despite this warning, Plaintiffs failed to file 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). The
Plaintiffs have waived appellate review of their claims by
failing to file specific objections after receiving proper
notice.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

-- 3 of 4 --

4
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED

-- 4 of 4 --