USCA4 Appeal: 24-1192 Doc: 17 Filed: 10/03/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1192

CHRISTINA ALEXANDRIA TAYLOR-LOPER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SAM’S CLUB/WALMART ASSOCIATES, INC.,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (5:22-cv-00361-M-RJ)

Submitted: September 26, 2024 Decided: October 3, 2024

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and BERNER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christina Alexandria Taylor-Loper, Appellant Pro Se. Jose Rodrigo Pocasangre, Winston- Salem, North Carolina, Shannon Sumerell Spainhour, CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1192 Doc: 17 Filed: 10/03/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Christina Alexandria Taylor-Loper appeals the district court’s order dismissing her

complaint brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,

42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge

pursuant to

(b)(1). The magistrate judge recommended that the case be

dismissed and advised Taylor-Loper 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,

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

(4th Cir. 1985); see

also Thomas v. Arn,

(1985). Taylor-Loper 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

2