Pearla Harvey v. Marshal Horton

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: June 16, 2025
• Docket: 24-1639
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1639 Doc: 9 Filed: 06/16/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1639

PEARLA HARVEY, tribally known as Hacha Kusso; “Yuchii Kusso Mvskoki Tribe Copper-Color/Black Indians,”

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MARSHAL L. HORTON, Lawyer; HORTON & ASSOCIATES, LLC, Law Firm,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (9:24-cv-00744-RMG)

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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Pearla Harvey, Appellant Pro Se. Jasmine Denise Smith, ROBINSON GRAY STEPP & LAFFITTE, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1639 Doc: 9 Filed: 06/16/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Pearla Harvey appeals the district court’s order dismissing Harvey’s complaint

without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 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 relief be denied and advised Harvey 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). Harvey has forfeited appellate review

by failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after receiving

proper notice. Accordingly, we 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