Joana Deshield v. SDH Education East, LLC, No. 13-1945 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1945 JOANA DESHIELD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SDH EDUCATION EAST, LLC, d/b/a/ Sodexo, Incorporated, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:12-cv-00230-WO-JLW) Submitted: October 17, 2013 Decided: October 21, 2013 Before AGEE, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joana Deshield, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly Joyce Lehman, Gregory Phillip McGuire, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Joana Deshield appeals from the district court s order granting summary judgment for the Defendant in her employment discrimination action. Deshield s case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Deshield that failure to file timely objections to the recommendation could 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); Deshield has been warned of the consequences of Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845 46 (4th see also waived Thomas v. 474 review appellate Arn, by objections after receiving proper notice. U.S. 140 failing (1985). to file Accordingly, we deny Deshield s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm. 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.