Helene Riley v. Seth Bartlett, No. 14-2235 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-2235 HELENE MARIA RILEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SETH BARTLETT, IRS Field Agent, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (6:14-cv-00350-TMC) Submitted: August 27, 2015 Before GREGORY Circuit Judge. and SHEDD, Decided: Circuit Judges, September 10, 2015 and DAVIS, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Helene Maria Riley, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen M. Wolfinger, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; George John Conits, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Helene Maria Riley appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her civil action against Seth Bartlett. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Riley that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review recommendation. of a district court order based upon the Riley filed no objections, and the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s report. 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. Wright v. Collins, see 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). review by failing to file Cir. 1985); also Riley has waived appellate objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, although we deny Bartlett’s motion to dismiss because the appeal, we dispense district affirm with court the oral extended judgment argument of Riley’s the because 2 time district the facts to note court. and an We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
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.
