USCA4 Appeal: 24-1535 Doc: 8 Filed: 08/30/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1535

PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE NUMBER P60005535, & Presidential 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.

PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN; HUNTER BIDEN; UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE; THE WHITE HOUSE, at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20500; CHIEF OF STAFF; ATTORNEY GENERAL MERRICK GARLAND, at 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20530,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (3:24-cv-01750-DCC)

Submitted: August 27, 2024 Decided: August 30, 2024

Before KING and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Presidential Candidate Number P60005535, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1535 Doc: 8 Filed: 08/30/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

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

(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,

(4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins,

(4th Cir. 1985); see

also Thomas v. Arn,

(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,

, 796 (4th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (order).

2