Opinion
24-1532
08-29-2024
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE NUMBER P60005535, &P residential Committee/Political Action Committee/Separate Segregated Fund (SSF) Number C00569897 d/b/a United Emrits of America a/k/a Ronald Satish Emrit, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. THE REPUBLIC OF CUBA, EMBASSY OF CUBA IN UNITED STATES; CUBAN INTELLIGENCE SERVICE, (CIS); MINISTRY OF AFFAIRS, Defendants - Appellees. FOREIGN
Presidential Candidate Number P60005535, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: August 27, 2024
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (3:24-cv-01738-DCC)
Presidential Candidate Number P60005535, Appellant Pro Se.
Before KING and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Satish Emrit, who also identifies himself as Presidential Candidate Number P60005535, appeals the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his civil complaint for improper venue.[*] The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended dismissal and advised Emrit that failure to file timely 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). Emrit has forfeited appellate review by failing to file objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we 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.
[*] The district court's order is a final, appealable order because the court did not grant Emrit leave to amend his complaint. Britt v. DeJoy, 45 F.4th 790, 796 (4th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (order).