FlawCheck Citator
Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 10349675
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Jane Doe v. Department of Defense

No. 10349675 · Decided March 3, 2025
No. 10349675 · Fourth Circuit · 2025 · FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Decided
March 3, 2025
Citation
No. 10349675
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
USCA4 Appeal: 24-2133 Doc: 13 Filed: 03/03/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-2133 JANE DOE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (0:24-mc-00573-MGL) Submitted: February 27, 2025 Decided: March 3, 2025 Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jane Doe, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-2133 Doc: 13 Filed: 03/03/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Jane Doe appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice her civil complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(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 dismissal and advised Doe that failure to file timely specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based on 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). Doe 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 ∗ The district court’s order is a final, appealable order because the court did not grant Doe leave to amend her complaint. Britt v. DeJoy, 45 F.4th 790, 796 (4th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (order). 2
Plain English Summary
USCA4 Appeal: 24-2133 Doc: 13 Filed: 03/03/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No.
Key Points
Frequently Asked Questions
USCA4 Appeal: 24-2133 Doc: 13 Filed: 03/03/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Jane Doe v. Department of Defense in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on March 3, 2025.
Use the citation No. 10349675 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.
Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Side-by-side with Westlaw and LexisNexis

Feature FlawFinder Westlaw LexisNexis
Monthly price$19 – $99$133 – $646$153 – $399
ContractNone1–3 year min1–6 year min
Hidden fees$0, alwaysUp to $469/search$25/mo + per-doc
FlawCheck citatorIncludedKeyCite ($$$)Shepard's ($$$)
Plain-English summaryIncludedNoNo
CancelOne clickTermination feesAccount friction
Related Cases

Full legal research for $19/month

All 50 states · Federal regulations · Case law · Police SOPs · AI analysis included · No contract

Continue Researching →