Adrienne Sewell v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
3