Roger Kelley v. Larry Powers, No. 08-7485 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7485 ROGER KELLEY, Plaintiff Appellant, v. LARRY POWERS, Director, Spartanburg County Detention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) Submitted: January 7, 2009 Decided: 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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. recommended failure § 636(b)(1)(B) that to relief file be timely, (2006). denied The and specific magistrate advised Kelley objections to judge that this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based Kelley upon failed to the file recommendation. specific Despite objections to this the warning, magistrate judge s recommendation; he only restated the claims raised in his complaint. The magistrate timely judge s filing of recommendation specific is objections necessary to to a preserve 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 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 contentions are adequately 2 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.