Beverley Wilson v. Jason Moss, No. 15-1983 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1983 In re: BEVERLEY D. WILSON, Debtor, ----------------------BEVERLEY D. WILSON, a/k/a Beverley Deloris Duncan-Wilson, a/k/a Beverley Deloris Duncan-Stewart, a/k/a Beverley Deloris Stewart, d/b/a/ Wilson Pediatrics Incorporated, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JASON T. MOSS; MOSS AND ASSOCIATES PA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (5:15-cv-02230-MBS) Submitted: January 14, 2016 Decided: January 19, 2016 Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Beverley D. Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Jason T. Moss, MOSS & ASSOCIATES, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Beverley D. Wilson appeals the district court’s order dismissing as untimely her appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing her complaint for failure to prosecute. 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 the appeal be dismissed and advised Wilson 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). Wilson has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the district court. Wilson also appeals the district court’s order denying her motion for extension of bankruptcy court’s order. no reversible error. the district time to note her appeal from the We have reviewed the record and find Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of court. Wilson v. (D.S.C. Aug. 26, 2015). 3 Moss, No. 5:15-cv-02230-MBS 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. AFFIRMED 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
