Za’vari’a Sherer v. Publix Supermarkets

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1913
ZA’VARI’A SHERER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PUBLIX SUPERMARKETS,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (2:23-cv-00275-BHH)
Submitted: February 20, 2025 Decided: February 24, 2025
Before AGEE, HARRIS, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Za’Vari’A Sherer, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Andrew Lehrer, FORD & HARRISON LLP,
Spartanburg, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Za’Vari’A Sherer appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation
of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendant in his
employment retaliation action brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17. 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
Defendant’s summary judgment motion be granted and advised Sherer 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). Sherer has forfeited appellate review
by failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after receiving
proper notice.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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 --