Denise Ernul v. Appalachian Council of Governments

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: August 31, 2023
• Docket: 22-2194
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2194 Doc: 43 Filed: 08/31/2023 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-2194

DENISE ERNUL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

APPALACHIAN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (6:21-cv-01842-TMC)

Submitted: August 29, 2023 Decided: August 31, 2023

Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Howard E. Sutter III, SUTTER LAW FIRM, LLC, Easley, South Carolina, for Appellant. Derwood L. Aydlette, III, GIGNILLIAT, SAVITZ & BETTIS, L.L.P., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-2194 Doc: 43 Filed: 08/31/2023 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Denise Ernul appeals the district court’s order granting the defendant’s motion to

dismiss and dismissing Ernul’s employment discrimination complaint. 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 defendant’s motion to dismiss be granted and that

Ernul’s complaint be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, 41(b), after finding that

Ernul had not participated in discovery in good faith and had failed to comply with the

magistrate judge’s discovery orders. Because Ernul did not file objections to the magistrate

judge’s recommendation, the district court reviewed it for clear error only and, discerning

none, adopted it. We affirm.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is

necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation. See

Solis v. Malkani, 638 F.3d 269, 273-74 (4th Cir. 2011) (recognizing that failure to object

to magistrate judge’s recommendation forfeits appeal and applying forfeiture rule despite

magistrate judge’s failure to warn counsel about consequences of not objecting); Wells v.

Shriners Hosp., 109 F.3d 198, 199-201 (4th Cir. 1997) (same). Because Ernul failed to

object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, she has forfeited appellate review of the

district court’s order adopting that recommendation. *

* Although this forfeiture rule is subject to exceptions, see Arakas v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 983 F.3d 83, 105 (4th Cir. 2020), Ernul does not argue on appeal that she satisfies any of those exceptions.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-2194 Doc: 43 Filed: 08/31/2023 Pg: 3 of 3

We thus affirm the district court’s order. 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