Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-24-01284/USCOURTS-ca4-24-01284-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 240
Nature of Suit: Torts to Land
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1284 Doc: 28 Filed: 12/23/2024 Pg: 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1284 Doc: 28 Filed: 12/23/2024 Pg: 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.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1284 Doc: 28 Filed: 12/23/2024 Pg: 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

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1284 Doc: 28 Filed: 12/23/2024 Pg: 4 of 4