Larrietta Johnson v. US, No. 16-1777 (4th Cir. 2016)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1777 LARRIETTA JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; ROBIN LENNOX-AUSTON; LISA WRIGHT, Privacy Officer; JANET HENDERSON; DIANE R. GODMAN, Compensation & Pension Examiner, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:15-cv-00556-RJC-DSC) Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 21, 2016 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larrietta Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Tiffany M. Mallory, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Larrietta accepting the Johnson appeals recommendation dismissing her complaint. the of district the court’s magistrate order judge and 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 the complaint be dismissed and advised Johnson that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). to file specific Johnson has waived appellate review by failing objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 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.