Wilson v. Moss et al
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 5 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 7/9/2015. (mdea ) (Main Document 8 replaced on 7/14/2015) (mdea, ).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Beverley D. Wilson, also known as
Beverley Deloris Duncan-Wilson, also
) C/A No. 5:15-2230-MBS
known as Beverley Deloris Duncan-Stewart, )
also known as Beverley Deloris Stewart,
doing business as Wilson Pediatrics
John T. Moss and Moss and Associates
On June 3, 2015, Appellant Beverley D. Wilson, proceeding pro se, filed an appeal from
orders entered by the United States Bankruptcy Court in the underlying malpractice action against
her bankruptcy attorneys. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this
matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges for pretrial handling.
On June 15, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which she
noted that Appellant is attempting to appeal orders issued by the Bankruptcy Court on April 27, 2015
and April 29, 2015. The Magistrate Judge noted that pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a), a notice
of appeal must be filed with the bankruptcy clerk within fourteen days after entry of the judgment,
order, or decree being appealed. The Magistrate Judge further observed that Appellant did not file
a notice of appeal until June 1, 2015, well in excess of the requisite time period. Accordingly, the
Magistrate Judge determined that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
Appellant filed no objection to the Report and Recommendation.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final determination remains with this court.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). This court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
This court may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. Id. In the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de
novo review, but instead must “only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record
in order to accept the recommendation.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310,
315 (4th Cir. 2005).
The court has thoroughly reviewed the record.
The court adopts the Report and
Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. For the reasons stated herein and in the
Report and Recommendation, the appeal is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Margaret B. Seymour
Senior United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
July 9, 2015
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?