Beza Consulting, Inc., Avirginia Corporation v. Muluneh Mhirate Yadeta, an individual

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1859
BEZA CONSULTING, INC., A VIRGINIA CORPORATION; BEZA
CONSULTING ENGINEERS PLC., an Ethiopian entity,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
MULUNEH MHIRATE YADETA, an individual,
Defendant – Appellant,
and
BEZA CONSULTING, INC., A MARYLAND CORPORATION,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony J. Trenga,
District Judge. (1:14-cv-00881-AJT-TCB)
Submitted: January 12, 2016 Decided: January 20, 2016
Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Muluneh Mhirate Yadeta, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas John McKee,
Jr., GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP, McLean, Virginia, for Appellees.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Muluneh Mhirate Yadeta appeals the district court’s orders
accepting the recommendations of the magistrate judge and
entering default judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs in this
civil action alleging trademark infringement and other claims.
On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the
Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Yadeta does
not contest the finding that he engaged in discovery violations,
which was the basis for the district court’s entry of the
default judgment against him, he has forfeited appellate review
of that judgment.
Although Yadeta attempts to challenge the amount of the
damages awarded to the Plaintiffs, the magistrate judge, in her
report and recommendation addressing damages, advised Yadeta
that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation
could 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). Yadeta has waived appellate review by failing to timely

-- 3 of 4 --

4
file specific objections to the amount of damages after
receiving proper notice.
Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See
Beza Consulting, Inc. v. Yadeta, No. 1:14-cv-00881-AJT-TCB (E.D.
Va. Mar. 27 & July 2, 2015). 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

-- 4 of 4 --