The opinion
USCA4 Appeal: 24-1137 Doc: 24 Filed: 06/16/2025 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1137
ANGELLA R. NEIL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WARREN COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:20-cv-00595-FL)
Submitted: June 12, 2025 Decided: June 16, 2025
Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Angella R. Neil, Appellant Pro Se. David B. Noland, THARRINGTON SMITH LLP,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 24-1137 Doc: 24 Filed: 06/16/2025 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Angella R. Neil appeals the district court’s order dismissing her complaint for
failure to comply with discovery obligations and court orders. The district court referred
this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge
recommended that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice and advised Neil that failure
to file timely, 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. Martin v. Duffy, 858
F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846-47 (4th Cir. 1985); see
also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154-55 (1985). Neil has forfeited appellate review by
failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after receiving proper
notice. Accordingly, we deny Neil’s pending motion and 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