Court Opinion

ID: 9929429
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-02 17:01:23.081464+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:23:12.865839
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-12222    Document: 24-1     Date Filed: 02/02/2024   Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-12222
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       ROCKY CREED KELLY,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Northern District of Georgia
                  D.C. Docket No. 2:20-cr-00030-SCJ-JCF-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-12222      Document: 24-1     Date Filed: 02/02/2024     Page: 2 of 3

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 23-12222

       Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Rocky Creed Kelly appeals his convictions for receipt, distri-
       bution, and possession of child pornography, arguing that the dis-
       trict court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the
       search warrant was not supported by probable cause and the good-
       faith exception did not apply. The government responds by mov-
       ing for summary affirmance, arguing that Mr. Kelly did not object
       to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (“R&R”) rec-
       ommending denial of his motion to suppress and adopted by the
       district court, so he waived any argument about the denial of his
       motion to suppress.
              Summary disposition is appropriate either where time is of
       the essence, such as “situations where important public policy is-
       sues are involved or those where rights delayed are rights denied,”
       or where “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a
       matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the
       outcome of the case, or where, as is more frequently the case, the
       appeal is frivolous.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158,
       1162 (5th Cir. 1969). A motion for summary aﬃrmance postpones
       the due date for the ﬁling of any remaining brief until we rule on
       the motion. See 11th Cir. R. 31-1(c).
             A party failing to object to a magistrate judge’s ﬁndings or
       recommendations contained in a R&R waives the right to chal-
       lenge on appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to
USCA11 Case: 23-12222      Document: 24-1     Date Filed: 02/02/2024     Page: 3 of 3

       23-12222               Opinion of the Court                         3

       factual and legal conclusions if the party was informed of the time
       period for objecting and the consequences on appeal for failing to
       object. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1. In the absence of a proper objection,
       however, we may review on appeal for plain error, if necessary, in
       the interests of justice. See id.
              We grant the government’s motion for summary aﬃrmance
       because its position is clearly correct as a matter of law. See Groen-
       dyke Transp., Inc., 406 F.2d at 1162. Mr. Kelly waived his right to
       challenge the magistrate judge’s factual and legal conclusions be-
       cause he failed to object to the R&R. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1. In an
       order ﬁled alongside the R&R, the magistrate judge informed Mr.
       Kelly that he had 14 days to object to the R&R and that failure to
       do so would waive his right to challenge the conclusions on appeal.
       Although he requested an extension of time to ﬁle objections,
       which was granted, Mr. Kelly never objected to the R&R, and thus
       waived his right to appeal the conclusions in the R&R. See id.
       Thus, the government is clearly correct as a matter of law that Mr.
       Kelly waived his right to appeal the conclusions in the R&R. See
       Groendyke Transp., Inc., 406 F.2d at 1162.
             Accordingly, because the government’s position is clearly
       correct as a matter of law, we GRANT the motion for summary
       aﬃrmance.
             AFFIRMED.