Pearla Harvey, tribally known as Hacha Kusso v. MARSHAL L. HORTON, Lawyer; HORTON & ASSOCIATES, LLC, Law Firm

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1639
PEARLA HARVEY, tribally known as Hacha Kusso; “Yuchii Kusso Mvskoki
Tribe Copper-Color/Black Indians,”
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MARSHAL L. HORTON, Lawyer; HORTON & ASSOCIATES, LLC, Law Firm,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort.
Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (9:24-cv-00744-RMG)
Submitted: June 12, 2025 Decided: June 16, 2025
Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Pearla Harvey, Appellant Pro Se. Jasmine Denise Smith, ROBINSON GRAY STEPP &
LAFFITTE, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Pearla Harvey appeals the district court’s order dismissing Harvey’s complaint
without prejudice for lack of subject matter 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 relief be denied and advised Harvey 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). Harvey 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 --