MaKesha Smith v. St. Francis Hospital, No. 14-1207 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1207 MAKESHA MICHELLE SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ST. FRANCIS HOSPITAL; JOANN TAYLOR; SHAUNA GREEN, Defendants - Appellees, and ANTHONY J. MARCAVAGE, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (6:12-cv-02533-TMC) Submitted: July 30, 2014 Decided: August 7, 2014 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. MaKesha Michelle Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Allen Bright, OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: MaKesha Michelle Smith appeals the order denying relief on her civil complaint. district court s The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Smith that failure to file timely 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. been warned of the consequences of Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Smith has waived appellate review by failing to timely file objections after receiving proper notice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (d). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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.