Ronald Emrit v. The Grammy Awards on CBS

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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Unpublished