Gwen Hurt v. Bank of America BAC Home Loan, No. 12-2308 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2308 GWEN HURT, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA BAC HOME LOAN SERVICING, LP; RECONTRUST COMPANY, NA; ALG TRUSTEE LLC; DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, Defendants - Appellees, and FIRST FRANKLIN MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:12-cv-00184-REP-DJN) Submitted: February 19, 2013 Decided: February 26, 2013 Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gwen Hurt, Appellant Pro Se. Catherine Bobick, Jacob Scott Woody, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Charlottesville, Virginia; Robert William Loftin, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia; Dean L. Robinson, ATLANTIC Appellees. LAW GROUP, LLC, Leesburg, Virginia, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Gwen Hurt appeals from the denying relief on her civil action. this case to a magistrate district court s order The district court referred judge pursuant ยง 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2012). to 28 U.S.C.A. The magistrate judge recommended that the district court grant the motions to dismiss Hurt s amended Demurrer Hurt s complaint, for Consent Non motions restraining deny and seeking order, and original complaint. Hurt s Objections, injunctive to self-styled strike and deny relief, the a motions Motion to as moot temporary dismiss her The magistrate judge also advised Hurt that failure to file objections to this recommendation in a timely manner could bar appellate review of a district court order based on the recommendation. The district court adopted the recommendation, granted the motions to dismiss Hurt s amended complaint, denied Hurt s Motion Demurrer, dismissed the amended complaint, and denied as moot Hurt s restraining motions order. for The injunctive court also relief denied and a Hurt s temporary motions to strike the motions to dismiss her original complaint, denied as moot Hurt s Hurt s motions defendant s Hurt s motion to name, original for a amend and restraining and denied complaint. as The 3 order, correct moot court the the denied as spelling motions further to denied moot of a dismiss Hurt s self-styled Affidavit of Fact and Motion for Disqualification of Judge and denied as moot Hurt s motions for summary judgment and default judgment. A We affirm. litigant who fails to file specific written objections to a magistrate judge s recommendations waives her right to appellate review of a district court order adopting the recommendations. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845 (4th Cir. 1985) (noting the general rule that a party who fails to object to a magistrate[] [judge s] report is barred from appealing the judgment of a district court adopting the magistrate[] [judge s] findings ); see (4th 2008) Cir. United States (holding v. that Benton, a 523 general F.3d 424, objection 428 to a magistrate judge s finding is insufficient to preserve a claim for appellate review). Hurt has waived her right to appellate review of the district court s rulings granting the motions to dismiss the dismissing amended the complaint, amended denying complaint, and the Motion denying as Demurrer, moot the motions for injunctive relief and a temporary restraining order by failing to file specific written objections to the magistrate judge s report in a timely manner. Next, on appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Hurt s informal brief does not challenge the district court s rulings denying her motions to strike the motions to 4 dismiss her original complaint, denying as moot her motion for a restraining order, denying as moot her motions to amend and correct the spelling of a defendant s name, denying as moot the motions to dismiss her original complaint, and denying her Affidavit of Fact and Motion for Disqualification of Judge, Hurt has forfeited appellate review of those rulings. Finally, with respect to the district court s denial as moot of Hurt s motions for summary judgment and default judgment, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. We Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 5