Tanger Harris v. Progressive Northern Insurance, No. 09-1846 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1846 TANGER ANITA HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY; INSURANCE; TRISH CLARK; ALLISON THOMAS, BURNS AND BURNS Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (8:09-cv-01341-HMH) Submitted: November 19, 2009 Decided: December 1, 2009 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tanger Anita Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tanger Anita Harris appeals the district court s order dismissing her cause of action without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Harris that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order warning, based Harris upon failed the to recommendation. object to the Despite magistrate this judge s recommendation. The magistrate timely judge s filing of recommendation specific is objections necessary to to a preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have noncompliance. been warned of the consequences of Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Harris has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. Before this court, Harris also moves to seal this matter, in its entirety, for a transcript at the Government s expense, and to prosecute Defendant Progressive Northern Insurance. 2 In her motion to seal this matter, Harris fails to comply with the requirements of 4th Cir. R. 25(c). seal. Thus, we deny her motion to Additionally, the docket does not reflect any hearing for which a transcript could be prepared. Thus, we deny Harris motion for a transcript at the Government s expense. Finally, because Harris asserts injury caused by Defendant Progressive Northern Insurance for the first time on appeal, we conclude that such claim is procedurally defaulted and deny relief. Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993); Nat l Wildlife Fed. v. Hanson, 859 F.2d 313, 318 (4th Cir. 1988). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.