Dillon MVURI, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee.
Decided: September 12, 2019
Before KING, THACKER, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Dillon Mvuri, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel E. Farrington, FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP, Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellee.
Dillon Mvuri appeals the district court's order granting American Airlines, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment in Mvuri's action brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 2012 & Supp. 2019), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 621 to 634 (West 2018). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of American Airlines, Inc. for the reasons stated by the district court. Mvuri v. Am. Airlines, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-00797-LMB-JFA (E.D. Va. Jan. 11, 2019).
Mvuri also moves for leave to file a supplemental brief challenging the magistrate judge's denial of his motions to compel discovery and to amend the complaint. Nondispositive matters may be referred to a magistrate judge without the parties’ consent. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). If a party opposes a magistrate judge's order on a nondispositive matter, the party must “file objections to the order within 14 days after being served with a copy.” Id. Significantly, Rule 72(a) provides that “[a] party may not assign as error a defect in the [magistrate judge's] order not timely objected to.” Id.; see also Solis v. Malkani, 638 F.3d 269, 274 (4th Cir. 2011) (noting that failure to object to magistrate judge's determinations in either dispositive or nondispositive matters waives further review). Mvuri did not appeal to the district court from the magistrate judge's decisions denying his motions to compel discovery and to amend the complaint. Therefore, although we grant the motion to file a supplemental brief, we dismiss Mvuri's appeal of the magistrate judge's orders.
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 IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
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.