Mrs. Taii-Ko Monteiro-Bells, f/k/a Taii-ko Monteiro v. Dr. Paul Douglas Deholl, M.d.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-2189
MRS. TAII-KO MONTEIRO-BELLS, f/k/a Taii-ko Monteiro, et al,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DR. PAUL DOUGLAS DEHOLL, M.D., et al,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:25-cv-09583-JFA)
Submitted: March 26, 2026 Decided: March 30, 2026
Before RICHARDSON and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Taii-ko Monteiro-Bells, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Taii-ko Monteiro-Bells appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil action
for lack of jurisdiction. 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 action be
dismissed and advised Monteiro-Bells that failure to file timely and specific objections to
this recommendation would 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). Monteiro-Bells has forfeited
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 --