Shaneka Flournoy v. SC Department of Employment, No. 13-1148 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1148 SHANEKA SHARDAY FLOURNOY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT Office of General Counsel; EXEL INC., AND WORKFORCE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (7:12-cv-03267-TMC) Submitted: June 20, 2013 Decided: June 25, 2013 Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Shaneka Sharday Flournoy, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Shaneka Sharday Flournoy appeals the district court s order denying discrimination benefits. relief and on her wrongful complaint denial of alleging employment unemployment insurance The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Flournoy that failure to file timely and 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 specific recommendation is objections necessary to to a preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have noncompliance. Cir. 1985); Flournoy objections warned of the consequences of Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th see has been also waived after Thomas v. receiving 474 review appellate Arn, by proper U.S. 140 failing notice. (1985). to Accordingly, file we affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.