Rosie Hopkins v. the State of North Carolina

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-1107
ROSIE HOPKINS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICE HEALTH CARE REGISTRY; VILLAGES OF APEX CLUB;
APEX POLICE DEPARTMENT; KAREN BEATY; ZACHARY BEATY;
PATHWAYS FOR PEOPLE, INC.; ACCIDENT FUND OF AMERICA; NC
INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION WORKER COMP; ANTHONY SACCO;
DEBORAH DEBBIE GABRILLE; GLORIA ALEREZ-ROTHROCK; JAMIE
HADDOCK-WEST; MICHELE SULLIVAN; CAROLYN T. MARCUS;
TAMARA NANCE; STELLA HAYS; PAMELA GILYARD; WILLIAM
MADDREY; RITA HORTON; THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA WAKE
COUNTY JUSTICE CENTER; KEITH GREGORY; MICHAEL J. DENNING;
ERIN BECKER; AUSTIN BRAXTON; MARY ASHTON SLAGLE; SEAN
MYERS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:24-cv-00197-FL-KS)
Submitted: March 27, 2025 Decided: April 1, 2025
Before THACKER and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Rosie Hopkins, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Rosie Hopkins appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil action under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 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 the
complaint be dismissed and advised Hopkins that failure to file timely and 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). Hopkins has forfeited appellate
review by failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after
receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we treat Hopkins’ motion to review additional
evidence as a motion to supplement her informal brief, grant the motion, 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 before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --