Adrienne Sewell v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: March 27, 2013
• Docket: 12-2132
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-2132

ADRIENNE SEWELL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK N.A.; WELLS FARGO & COMPANY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge; Robert S. Ballou, Magistrate Judge. (7:11-cv-00124-SGW- RSB)

Submitted: March 21, 2013 Decided: March 27, 2013

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven D. Smith, SD SMITH, ESQUIRE, PLLC, Blacksburg, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana L. Rust, Summer L. Speight, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Adrienne Sewell seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s

discovery order denying her motion to compel the production of

documents and her motion for discovery sanctions in her civil

suit against Wells Fargo Bank. The district court referred the

nondispositive discovery motions to a magistrate judge pursuant

to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(A) (West 2006 & Supp. 2012).

The timely filing of specific objections to a

magistrate judge’s nondispositive order is necessary to preserve

appellate review of that order. 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1); Fed.

R. Civ. P. 72(a); see Wells v. Shriners Hosp., 109 F.3d 198,

199, 201 (4th Cir. 1997) (recognizing that failure to file

objections to magistrate judge’s recommendation amounts to

waiver of appellate review); see also Cont’l Cas. Co. v.

Dominick D’Andrea, Inc., 150 F.3d 245, 252 (3d Cir. 1998).

Sewell failed to file objections to the magistrate

judge’s order or otherwise challenge the rulings in the district

court; thus, she has waived appellate review of that order. The

magistrate judge’s failure to warn Sewell of the consequence of

not filing objections did not relieve Sewell of her duty to file

timely objections. See Wells, 109 F.3d at 199-200 (stating that

magistrate judge is not required to warn counsel of consequence

of failure to object).

2 Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma

pauperis and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED