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

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [998962922-2] Originating case number: 7:11-cv-00124-SGW-RSB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999072970].. [12-2132]

Appeal: 12-2132

Doc: 42

Filed: 03/27/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED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-SGWRSB)

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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-2132

Doc: 42

Filed: 03/27/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

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.

objections

to

waiver

appellate

of

1997)

magistrate

(recognizing
judge’s

review);

see

that

failure

recommendation
also

Cont’l

to

file

amounts
Cas.

Co.

to
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

Appeal: 12-2132

Doc: 42

Filed: 03/27/2013

Accordingly,

we

Pg: 3 of 3

deny

pauperis and dismiss the appeal.

leave

to

proceed

in

forma

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

3