UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-2195

QUANCIDINE HINSON-GRIBBLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JOE BENSON, Mayor of Carolina Beach; ED H. PARVIN, Assistant Town Manager; CHRIS SPIVEY, Police Chief; TOWN OF CAROLINA BEACH PARKING OFFICE; TOWN OF CAROLINA BEACH, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (5:19-cv-00307-BO)

Submitted: January 21, 2020 Decided: January 23, 2020

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Quancidine Hinson-Gribble, Appellant Pro Se. Clay Allen Collier, CROSSLEY MCINTOSH COLLIER HANLEY & EDES PLLC, Wilmington, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Quancidine Hinson-Gribble appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil action without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denying as moot her motions for entry of default and for default judgment. 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 the action be dismissed sua sponte and advised Hinson-Gribble 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. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Hinson- Gribble has waived appellate review by failing to file objections 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