Rebecca Theresa v. Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing

USCA4 Appeal: 26-1102 Doc: 5 Filed: 06/02/2026 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 26-1102

REBECCA THERESA, Family Name Kalfa / Sui Juris one of we the people Moving Party Of Real Interest For Estate of Ralph P. Deangelis, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING, their Trustees and their Principals; CORPORATE OFFICER R.N.E.S.; MARK FOLEY; WHITNEY WINCE, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Jacquelyn Denise Austin, District Judge. (6:25-cv-12979-JDA)

Submitted: May 28, 2026 Decided: June 2, 2026

Before WYNN, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rebecca Theresa, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 26-1102 Doc: 5 Filed: 06/02/2026 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Rebecca Theresa appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil complaint under 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 dismissing the complaint and advised Theresa 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, 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). Theresa 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