Carolyn Reed-Smith v. Spartanburg County School District 7, 4th Cir. (2012)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsCarolyn Reed-Smith v. Spartanburg County School District 7, 4th Cir. (2012)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1818
CAROLYN E. REED-SMITH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SPARTANBURG COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT SEVEN,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg.
J. Michelle Childs, District
Judge. (7:11-cv-00970-JMC)
Submitted:
November 20, 2012
Decided:
November 29, 2012
Before AGEE, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carolyn E. Reed-Smith, Appellant Pro Se.
Carlos C. Johnson,
Kenneth William Nettles, Jr., LYLES DARR & CLARK, LLP,
Spartanburg, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Carolyn
E.
Reed-Smith
appeals
the
district
courts
order denying relief on her civil action alleging retaliation
and race and sex discrimination claims under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. 2000e to
2000e-17 (West 2003 & Supp. 2012), and violations of several
other
federal
statutes
and
constitutional
provisions.
The
district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant
to 28 U.S.C.A. 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2012).
magistrate
judge
recommended
that
the
district
court
The
grant
Defendants motion for summary judgment and decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining claims for relief
asserted under state law.
Smith
filed
recommendations.
While represented by counsel, Reed-
objections
to
the
magistrate
judges
The district court adopted the recommendations
and denied relief to Reed-Smith.
A
written
counseled
objections
to
litigant
a
who
magistrate
fails
to
judges
file
specific
recommendations
waives her right to appellate review of a district court order
adopting the recommendations.
Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841,
845 (4th Cir. 1985) (noting the general rule that a party who
fails to object to a magistrate[] [judges] report is barred
from appealing the judgment of a district court adopting the
magistrate[] [judges] findings); see United States v. Benton,
2
523
F.3d
424,
428
(4th
Cir.
2008)
(holding
that
general
objection to a magistrate judges finding is insufficient to
preserve a claim for appellate review).
Reed-Smith has waived
her right to appellate review of the district courts order by
failing to file specific objections to the magistrate judges
recommendations. *
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court.
legal
before
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
this
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
On appeal, Reed-Smith appears to contend that we should
exercise our discretion to permit her appeal under the so-called
interests of justice exception to the waiver rule recognized
by the Supreme Court. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985).
However, because Reed-Smith does not suggest any reason for
excusing the failure of her counsel to file specific objections
to the magistrate judges recommendations, no interests of
justice exception is warranted in this case.
