Kelley v. St. Bartholomew's Episcopal Church ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-2045
MELANIE KELLEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
EDWARD E. SALEEBY, JR.; DEBBIE J. FREEMAN; HARRIET E.
WILMETH; CARL A. SALEEBY; LISA COHEN, a/k/a Lisa A. Kinon;
GERALD MALLOY; JAMIE MURDOCK; MARVIN C. LAWSON; CHERYL
TURNER HOPKINS; TURNER PADGET GRAHAM & LANEY; JOHNNY JUNIOR
MITCHELL,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:08-cv-00639-RBH)
Submitted: November 20, 2008 Decided: November 25, 2008
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Melanie Kelley, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Melanie Kelley appeals the district court’s order
dismissing her complaint. The district court referred this case
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 based upon the recommendation. Despite this
warning, Kelley failed to object to the magistrate judge’s
recommendation.
The timely filing of specific objections to a
magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to 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
Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Kelley
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 also deny
Kelley’s motion for a transcript at government expense. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2