Myron Kelley v. J. Whitlark
Filing
920090227
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-8378
MYRON KELLEY, Plaintiff Appellant, v. J. MARCUS WHITLARK; PAUL C. BALLOU, all in, Defendants Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (3:08-cv-02801-HMH)
Submitted:
February 19, 2009
Decided:
February 27, 2009
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Myron Kelley, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Myron 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 timely waive upon to be (2006). denied and The magistrate Kelley to judge that this
recommended failure to
that file
advised
and
specific
objections of the
recommendation court's warning, order
would based
appellate the
review
district this the
recommendation. specific
Despite to
Kelley
failed
file
objections
magistrate judge's 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 objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we
affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional
would
process. AFFIRMED 2
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?