Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

IN RE WILSON, 15-1983. (2016)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: infco20160119101 Visitors: 17
Filed: Jan. 19, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 19, 2016
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM . Beverley D. Wilson appeals the district court's order dismissing as untimely her appeal from the bankruptcy court's order dismissing her complaint for failure to prosecute. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that the appeal be dismissed and advised Wilson that failure to file timely objections to thi
More

UNPUBLISHED

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Beverley D. Wilson appeals the district court's order dismissing as untimely her appeal from the bankruptcy court's order dismissing her complaint for failure to prosecute. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that the appeal be dismissed and advised Wilson that failure to file timely 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. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Wilson has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

Wilson also appeals the district court's order denying her motion for extension of time to note her appeal from the bankruptcy court's order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Wilson v. Moss, No. 5:15-cv-02230-MBS (D.S.C. Aug. 26, 2015).

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.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer