Myron Kelley v. J. Whitlark

Filing 920090227

Opinion

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8378 MYRON KELLEY, Plaintiff ­Appellant, v. J. MARCUS WHITLARK; PAUL C. BALLOU, all in, Defendants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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?