Dora Roundtree v. Mary Webb, No. 10-1392 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1392 DORA TOOLE ROUNDTREE, Plaintiff Appellant, v. MARY WEBB; PAMELA GLOVER; JENNIFER HOLSTON, Defendants Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (1:09-cv-03147-MBS) Submitted: August 19, 2010 Decided: August 27, 2010 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dora Toole Roundtree, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Dora Toole Roundtree appeals the district court s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice her civil complaint, and the district court s subsequent order denying reconsideration. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2010). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Roundtree that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The magistrate timely judge s filing of specific recommendation is objections necessary to to a preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have noncompliance. Cir. 1985); Roundtree objections warned of the consequences of Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th see has been also waived after Thomas v. appellate receiving Arn, review proper 474 by notice. affirm the orders of the district court. U.S. 140 failing (1985). to file Accordingly, we We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.