Kenda Kirby v. North Carolina State University

Fourth Circuit

Kenda Kirby v. North Carolina State University

615 F. App'x 136

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 2, 2015

Docket15-1333

StatusUnpublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 615 F. App'x 136 (Kenda Kirby v. North Carolina State University) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kenda Kirby v. North Carolina State University, 615 F. App'x 136 (4th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kenda R. Kirby appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her civil complaint. 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 relief be denied and advised Kirby that failure to file 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. Am, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Liberally construed, Kirby’s objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation specifically challenged the magistrate judge’s failure to address her claims concerning Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1688 (2012), and the recommendation to deny relief on her due process and equal protection claims. By failing to file specific objections to the magistrate *137 judge’s recommendation with regard to her other claims, after receiving proper notice, Kirby has waived appellate review of those claims.

Turning to the district court’s dismissal of Kirby’s Title IX, equal protection, and due process claims, we have reviewed the record and discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. Kirby v. N.C. State Univ., No. 5:13-cv-00850-FL (E.D.N.C. Mar. 11, 2015). We deny Kirby’s motion to allow a new issue on appeal and 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kenda R. Kirby appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her civil complaint. 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 relief be denied and advised Kirby that failure to file 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. Am, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Liberally construed, Kirby’s objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation specifically challenged the magistrate judge’s failure to address her claims concerning Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1688 (2012), and the recommendation to deny relief on her due process and equal protection claims. By failing to file specific objections to the magistrate *137 judge’s recommendation with regard to her other claims, after receiving proper notice, Kirby has waived appellate review of those claims.

Turning to the district court’s dismissal of Kirby’s Title IX, equal protection, and due process claims, we have reviewed the record and discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. Kirby v. N.C. State Univ., No. 5:13-cv-00850-FL (E.D.N.C. Mar. 11, 2015). We deny Kirby’s motion to allow a new issue on appeal and 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

615 F. App'x 136, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kenda-kirby-v-north-carolina-state-university-ca4-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack