USCA4 Appeal: 24-1115 Doc: 19 Filed: 01/28/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1115

VICTORIA LUNN JONES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SYKES ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (3:21-cv-03396-MGL)

Submitted: December 19, 2024 Decided: December 23, 2024 Amended: January 28, 2025

Before KING and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Victoria Lunn Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Danny Michael Henthorne, OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1115 Doc: 19 Filed: 01/28/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Victoria Lunn Jones appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her action

filed pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-

17. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Jones

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 sufficiently 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).

Jones 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