Jay Folse v. American Electric Power Service Corporation; Appalachian Power Company

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1284
JAY FOLSE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER SERVICE CORPORATION; APPALACHIAN
POWER COMPANY,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
PHILLIPS & JORDAN ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES LLC; PHILLIPS AND
JORDAN, INC.; PHILLIPS AND JORDAN HOLDING, LLC,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin, District Judge. (2:23-cv-00201)
Submitted: December 19, 2024 Decided: December 23, 2024
Before KING and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Jay Folse, Appellant Pro Se. W. Bradley Sorrells, ROBINSON & MCELWEE, PLLC,
Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Jay Folse seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion to
dismiss Folse’s West Virginia state law claims. The district court referred this case to a
magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge
recommended that Defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted and advised Folse that failure
to file timely, specific objections to the recommendation would 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. Martin v. Duffy, 858
F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846-47 (4th Cir. 1985); see
also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154-55 (1985). Although Folse received proper notice
and filed objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, he has forfeited appellate
review because the objections were untimely.
On appeal, Folse challenges the district court’s denial of his motion for an extension
of time to file his objections. We review the denial of a motion to extend a filing deadline
for abuse of discretion. See Thompson v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 76 F.3d 530, 534
(4th Cir. 1996). A party seeking an extension after missing a filing deadline must
demonstrate that failure to act within the specified time was the result of “excusable
neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). Upon review, we conclude that the district court did
not abuse its discretion in holding that Folse failed to establish excusable neglect.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
As Folse has waived appellate review by failing to file timely objections after
receiving proper notice, we affirm the district court’s order. Folse v. Am. Elec. Power Serv.
Corp., No. 2:23-cv-00201 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 15, 2024). 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 of 4 --