Kandance Wells v. City of Charleston, No. 22-1458 (4th Cir. 2022)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-1458 KANDANCE A. WELLS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CITY OF CHARLESTON, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Irene C. Berger, District Judge. (2:22-cv-00040) Submitted: July 26, 2022 Before MOTZ, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kandance A. Wells, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Decided: July 29, 2022 PER CURIAM: Kandance A. Wells appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil action. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Wells that failure to file timely, specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the 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. Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846-47 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154-55 (1985). Wells has waived appellate review by failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We deny Wells’ emergency motion to appoint/assign counsel and to file a formal brief and deny as moot Wells’ emergency motion for accelerated case processing. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2

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.