UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7432

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

WAYNE KEGLEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at 

Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:16-cr-00050-GMG-RWT-11; 3:18-cv00134-GMG-RWT)

Submitted: July 27, 2022 Decided: August 26, 2022

Before WYNN, DIAZ, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wayne Kegley, Appellant Pro Se. Shawn Michael Adkins, Assistant United States 

Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7432 Doc: 7 Filed: 08/26/2022 Pg: 1 of 4
2

PER CURIAM:

Wayne Kegley seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the magistrate 

judge’s report and denying relief on Kegley’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district 

court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims 

debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). When the district 

court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the 

dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of 

the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Kegley has not made 

the requisite showing. Kegley has not shown that reasonable jurists would debate the 

district court’s ruling regarding his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on

counsel’s failure to consult about an appeal. With respect to Kegley’s challenge to the 

district court’s 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) analysis at sentencing, we conclude that Kegley has 

forfeited appellate review of this issue. We limit our review of the record to the issues 

raised in Kegley’s informal brief, and Kegley does not respond to the district court’s 

conclusion that his collateral review waiver precluded this challenge. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); 

see also Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7432 Doc: 7 Filed: 08/26/2022 Pg: 2 of 4
3

important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved 

in that brief.”). 

Next, we conclude that Kegley has waived appellate review of his claims based on 

the Fourth and Eighth Amendments. The magistrate judge recommended that relief be 

denied and advised Kegley 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). 

Although Kegley received proper notice and filed timely objections to the magistrate 

judge’s recommendation, he did not object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation 

regarding his Fourth and Eighth Amendment claims. 

Lastly, to the extent that Kegley intends to raise freestanding claims of ineffective 

assistance of counsel based on: (1) counsel’s alleged failure to raise the above 

constitutional issues; (2) counsel’s alleged failure to present mitigating evidence at 

sentencing; and (3) counsel’s alleged coercion of Kegley to plead guilty, Kegley did not 

raise these claims as independent bases for relief in his operative § 2255 motion below. 

Therefore, those claims are not properly before us. See In re Under Seal, 749 F.3d 276, 

285 (4th Cir. 2014) (“Our settled rule is simple: absent exceptional circumstances, we do 

not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal.” (cleaned up)).

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7432 Doc: 7 Filed: 08/26/2022 Pg: 3 of 4
4

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny 

Kegley’s motion to appoint counsel. 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. 

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7432 Doc: 7 Filed: 08/26/2022 Pg: 4 of 4