Denardis Kilgo v. Christopher Scalzo, No. 22-6589 (4th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-6589 DENARDIS JAMONT KILGO, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CHRISTOPHER SCALZO; PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE; 13TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, Due Process System, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:22-cv-00815-HMH) Submitted: December 15, 2022 Decided: December 19, 2022 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Denardis Jamont Kilgo, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Denardis Jamont Kilgo appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. 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 Kilgo 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). Kilgo 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 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.