Melanie Kelley v. City of Hartsville

Filing 920081024

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1856

MELANIE KELLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CITY OF HARTSVILLE; CITY OF DARLINGTON, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:07-cv-03682-RBH)

Submitted:

October 21, 2008

Decided:

October 24, 2008

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Melanie Kelley, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Melanie adopting the Kelley appeals judge's the district court's and order denying

magistrate

recommendation

relief on her civil rights complaint and the district court's order denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. * The district court referred Kelley's complaint to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and

advised Kelley that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order Kelley based upon the to recommendation. object to the Despite this warning, judge's

failed

magistrate

recommendation. The magistrate timely filing of specific is objections to to a

judge's

recommendation

necessary

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 Kelley

Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).

has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific Although Kelley did not specify whether her post-judgment "motion for reconsideration" was filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) or 60(b), because it was filed within the ten-day limit for Rule 59(e) motions, it is treated as such. See Dove v. CODESCO, 569 F.2d 807, 809 (4th Cir. 1978).
*

2

objections

after

receiving

proper

notice.

Accordingly,

we

affirm the district court's order dismissing without prejudice Kelley's complaint. With regard to Kelley's Rule 59(e) motion, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See Pacific Ins. Co. v. American Nat'l Fire Ins. Accordingly, we affirm

Co., 148 F.3d 396, 402 (4th Cir. 1998).

the district court's denial of Kelley's Rule 59(e) motion. We also deny Kelly's motion for a transcript at

government expense. facts and legal before

We dispense with oral argument because the are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the

contentions the court

materials

would

decisional process. AFFIRMED

3