Tonya Chapman v. Greenville SC USPS, No. 17-1717 (4th Cir. 2017)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1717 TONYA R. CHAPMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GREENVILLE SC UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE; JENNIFER J ALDRICH, Asst US Atty Dep Chief Civil Div; ANN E MANDERNACH, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (6:17-cv-00556-TMC) Submitted: November 3, 2017 Decided: November 13, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tonya R. Chapman, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tonya R. Chapman seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing her complaint without prejudice and without issuance or service of process. 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 Chapman’s claims be dismissed and advised Chapman that a failure to timely file specific 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). Chapman has waived appellate review by failing to file objections that were specific to the basis of the magistrate judge’s recommendation 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.