Jestine Washington v. South State Bank, No. 18-1397 (4th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1397 JESTINE DELORES WASHINGTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SOUTH STATE BANK; FED.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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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
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.
