Loretta Samuel v. ESPN, Inc., No. 13-1675 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1675 LORETTA L. SAMUEL; WILLIAM R. SAMUEL, Plaintiffs Appellants, v. ESPN, INC., Defendant Appellee, and FIFA, 8044 Zurich Switzerland; ANHEUSER-BUSCH COMPANIES, INC., St. Louis; ADIDAS AMERICA, INC., Portland, Oregon; HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, F. Valley Ca.; FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE DE FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (3:11-cv-00423-JFA) Submitted: September 30, 2013 Decided: October 15, 2013 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Loretta L. Samuel, William R. Samuel, Appellants Pro Se. Tamar Y. Duvdevani, DLA PIPER US LLP, New York, New York; Larry Dwight Floyd, Jr., Lawrence Michael Hershon, PARKER, POE, ADAMS & BERNSTEIN, LLP, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Loretta L. and William R. Samuel appeal the district court s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on the Samuels s copyright infringement action. error. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2013). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Plaintiffs that failure to file timely, specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district Despite court this warning, order based Plaintiffs upon the failed recommendation. to file specific objections to the magistrate judge s 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). Plaintiffs failing have to file of waived appellate specific review objections of after their claims receiving The by proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 3 legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 4

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.