Jestine Washington v. South State Bank

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to seal [1000281445-2]. Originating case number: 2:17-cv-03464-RMG. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000337627]. Mailed to: Jestine Delores Washington. [18-1397]

Appeal: 18-1397

Doc: 11

Filed: 07/27/2018

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-1397

JESTINE DELORES WASHINGTON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SOUTH STATE BANK; FED. COURT; AT&T; COMCAST; DIRECT TV;
DOBSON & PEST CONTROL D-Z,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:17-cv-03464-RMG)

Submitted: July 9, 2018

Decided: July 27, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jestine Delores Washington, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 18-1397

Doc: 11

Filed: 07/27/2018

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Jestine Delores Washington seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing
her complaint and denying reconsideration. 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 relief be denied and advised Washington 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).
Washington has waived appellate review by failing to timely file objections after
receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny Washington’s motion to seal the informal
brief 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

2