Ronald Emrit v. The Grammy Awards on CBS
Ronald Emrit v. The Grammy Awards on CBS
Opinion
USCA4 Appeal: 23-2063 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/02/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-2063
RONALD SATISH EMRIT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THE GRAMMY AWARDS ON CBS, d/b/a The Recording Academy/National Academy or Recording Arts and Sciences, (NARAS),
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. (5:23-cv-00499-M-RJ)
Submitted: January 30, 2024 Decided: February 2, 2024
Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald Satish Emrit, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-2063 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/02/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Satish Emrit appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice
his civil complaint pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 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
2
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished