Gail Pace v. Crossmark, No. 11-1740 (4th Cir. 2011)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1740 GAIL E. PACE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CROSSMARK; DEBBIE RIDGEWAY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:10-cv-02797-HMH) Submitted: November 17, 2011 Decided: November 22, 2011 Before KING, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gail E. Pace, Appellant Pro Se. Lucas James Asper, Thomas Howard Keim, Jr., FORD & HARRISON, LLP, Spartanburg, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Gail E. Pace appeals the district court s order granting Defendants motion to dismiss her claims pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 2003 & Supp. 2011). 42 The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2011). The magistrate judge recommended that the complaint be dismissed and advised Pace that failure to timely file specific objections to this recommendation would waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The magistrate timely judge's filing of recommendation specific is objections necessary to to a preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have noncompliance. been warned of the consequences Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845 46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). has waived objections appellate after of review receiving by proper failing notice. affirm the district court s judgment. to file Pace specific 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.