Jacqueline Pidanick v. Christopher Maddaloni, No. 18-1817 (4th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1817 JACQUELINE PIDANICK, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CHRISTOPHER MADDALONI; MARSHALL HORTON; HORTON AND GOODMAN LLC, a South Carolina Limited Liability Corporation, Defendants - Appellees, and PAUL C. LAROSA, III, individually and in his official capacity; CHRIS SANKOWSKI, individually and in his official capacity, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. David C. Norton, District Judge. (9:17-cv-00281-DCN) Submitted: November 15, 2018 Decided: November 19, 2018 Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jacqueline Pidanick, Appellant Pro Se. Mark S. Berglind, VAUX & MARSCHER, PA, Bluffton, South Carolina; Joseph C. Wilson, IV, PIERCE, SLOAN, WILSON, KENNEDY & EARLY LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Jacqueline Pidanick appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil complaint. 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 Pidanick that failure to file timely, 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. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Pidanick has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We deny Pidanick’s motion to seal the discovery materials in a separate civil action, as the motion should be filed in the district court handling that case. 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
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.
