Melanie Kelley v. St. Bartholomew's Episcopal Ch, No. 08-2051 (4th Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2051 MELANIE KELLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ST. BARTHOLOMEW'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH; FR MICHEAL RIDGIL; MAE H. SALEEBY, 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-02259-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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 dismissing her complaint. to a magistrate (2000). judge the district court s order The district court referred this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) 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 warning, based Kelley upon failed the to recommendation. object to the Despite magistrate this judge s recommendation. The magistrate timely judge s filing of specific recommendation is objections necessary to to a preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have noncompliance. been warned of the consequences of 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 government expense. facts and legal Kelley s motion for a transcript at We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are 2 adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.