Belinda Hernandez, for A.I.A. v. Andrew Saul

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-2019
BELINDA HERNANDEZ, for A.I.A.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ANDREW SAUL,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Newport News. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. (4:19-cv-00106-MSD-DEM)
Submitted: February 11, 2021 Decided: February 22, 2021
Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Belinda Hernandez, Appellant Pro Se. Joel Eric Wilson, Assistant United States Attorney,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Belinda Hernandez appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her
complaint. 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 relief be denied and advised
Hernandez that failure to file timely, specific 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. 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). Hernandez has waived 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

-- 2 of 2 --