Roger Kelley v. Larry Powers
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
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)
January 7, 2009
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order Kelley based upon to the file recommendation. specific Despite to this the warning,
judge's recommendation; he only restated the claims raised in his complaint. The magistrate timely filing of specific is objections to to a
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?