USCA4 Appeal: 24-1895 Doc: 5 Filed: 01/27/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1895

SHANEKA SHARDAY FLOURNOY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PLASTIC OMNIUM, Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Timothy M. Cain, Chief District Judge. (7:24-cv-03217-TMC)

Submitted: January 23, 2025 Decided: January 27, 2025

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shaneka Sharday Flournoy, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1895 Doc: 5 Filed: 01/27/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM: Shaneka Sharday Flournoy appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss Flournoy’s complaint alleging violations of the American with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 to 12213. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended that Flournoy’s action be dismissed for failure to comply with the court’s orders and advised Flournoy that failure to file timely, specific objections to this recommendation would 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). Flournoy 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.

∗ In this court, Flournoy suggests that she did not receive the magistrate judge’s and district court’s filings, which included orders instructing Flournoy to bring her case into proper form. But the record confirms that the district court’s filings were mailed to the address Flournoy provided to the district court, and none of the filings were returned to the district court as undeliverable. We further observe that, especially given Flournoy’s prior litigation in the district court, Flournoy was informed and aware of her obligation to keep the district court apprised of any change to her address of record.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1895 Doc: 5 Filed: 01/27/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

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