Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 10643790
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Brittany Tomlinson v. State of North Carolina
No. 10643790 · Decided July 28, 2025
No. 10643790·Fourth Circuit · 2025·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Decided
July 28, 2025
Citation
No. 10643790
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
USCA4 Appeal: 25-1266 Doc: 5 Filed: 07/28/2025 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-1266
BRITTANY MARIE TOMLINSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; MICHELLE C. BALL, Clerk of Superior Court,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:24-cv-00708-FL)
Submitted: July 24, 2025 Decided: July 28, 2025
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brittany M. Tomlinson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 25-1266 Doc: 5 Filed: 07/28/2025 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Brittany Marie Tomlinson appeals the district court’s order dismissing her 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 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 Tomlinson 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). Tomlinson 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
Plain English Summary
USCA4 Appeal: 25-1266 Doc: 5 Filed: 07/28/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No.
Key Points
01USCA4 Appeal: 25-1266 Doc: 5 Filed: 07/28/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No.
02(5:24-cv-00708-FL) Submitted: July 24, 2025 Decided: July 28, 2025 Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
03Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
04USCA4 Appeal: 25-1266 Doc: 5 Filed: 07/28/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Brittany Marie Tomlinson appeals the district court’s order dismissing her 42 U.S.C.
Frequently Asked Questions
USCA4 Appeal: 25-1266 Doc: 5 Filed: 07/28/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Brittany Tomlinson v. State of North Carolina in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on July 28, 2025.
Use the citation No. 10643790 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.