Danielle Smith v. Bank of Stanly, No. 11-1467 (4th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1467 DANIELLE C. SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BANK OF STANLY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:09-cv-00951-NCT-LPA) Submitted: November 28, 2011 Decided: December 14, 2011 Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bruce M. Simpson, JAMES, MCELROY & DIEHL, PA, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Denise Smith Cline, LAW OFFICES OF DENISE SMITH CLINE, Raleigh, North Carolina; Matthew N. Leerberg, SMITH MOORE LEATHERWOOD LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Danielle C. Smith appeals the district court s order denying relief on her action alleging employment discrimination. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2011). The magistrate judge recommended that the Defendant s motion for summary judgment be granted and that the action be dismissed, and advised Smith that failure to file timely, specific written objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). We note that the magistrate judge provided this notice despite the fact that Smith was represented by counsel. As noted by the district court s order accepting the magistrate judge s recommendation, Smith s objections were not specific. The magistrate timely judge s filing of recommendation specific is objections necessary to to a preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have noncompliance. been warned of the consequences Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). has waived objections appellate after of review receiving by proper failing notice. affirm the judgment of the district court. 2 to file Smith specific Accordingly, we We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.