Angella Neil v. Warren County Board of Education

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: June 16, 2025
• Docket: 24-1137
• Status: Unpublished

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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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