Za'Vari'A Sherer v. Publix Supermarkets

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1913 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/24/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-1913 ZA’VARI’A SHERER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PUBLIX SUPERMARKETS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (2:23-cv-00275-BHH) Submitted: February 20, 2025 Decided: February 24, 2025 Before AGEE, HARRIS, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Za’Vari’A Sherer, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Andrew Lehrer, FORD & HARRISON LLP, Spartanburg, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1913 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/24/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Za’Vari’A Sherer appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendant in his employment retaliation action brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended that Defendant’s summary judgment motion be granted and advised Sherer 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). Sherer has forfeited appellate review by failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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