Roger Kelley v. Larry Powers

Filing 920090120

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7485

ROGER KELLEY, Plaintiff ­ Appellant, v. LARRY POWERS, Director, Spartanburg County Detention Center; TERESA SPELLER, Head of Security at Spartanburg County Detention Center, Defendants ­ Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (9:07-cv-03655-GRA)

Submitted:

January 7, 2009

Decided:

January 20, 2009

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roger Kelley, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Todd Darwin, HOLCOMBE, BOMAR, GUNN & BRADFORD, PA, Spartanburg, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Roger Kelley appeals the district court's order The

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint.

district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) relief be (2006). denied and The magistrate Kelley to judge that this

recommended failure to

that file

advised

timely,

specific

objections

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order Kelley based upon to the file recommendation. specific Despite to this the warning,

failed

objections

magistrate

judge's recommendation; he only restated the claims raised in his complaint. 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 that the failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841,

845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Kelley has waived appellate review by failing to file Accordingly,

specific objections after receiving proper notice. we affirm the judgment of the district court.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

2

before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process. AFFIRMED

3