Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Michael Lee HALL; Majorie Carol Hall, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION; Bank of America, N.A., Defendants - Appellees.
Michael Lee Hall and Marjorie Carol Hall (“the Halls”) appeal the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny their motion to remand and dismiss their several civil claims against Bank of America Corporation and Bank of America, N.A. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge advised the Halls that their failure to file timely objections to the 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. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). The Halls waived appellate review of the district court's dispositive holdings by failing to object to the magistrate judge's recommendations regarding the dismissal of their civil claims. Because the Halls objected to the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny their motion to remand, we have reviewed the record and discern no error in the district court's order adopting that aspect of the magistrate judge's recommendation. Accordingly, we affirm based on the reasoning of the district court that portion of the appealed-from order denying the Halls’ motion to remand. See Hall v. Bank of Am. Corp., No. 3:18-cv-00108-RJC-DSC, 2019 WL 215617 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 16, 2019).
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
PER CURIAM:
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 19-1088
Decided: April 23, 2019
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)