Case Name: Restoney ROBINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mrs. HUCKS, Officer; Captain Pless; Sergeant Eisenboss, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-29
Citations: 186 F. App'x 387
Docket Number: No. 06-6180
Parties: Restoney ROBINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mrs. HUCKS, Officer; Captain Pless; Sergeant Eisenboss, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 186
Pages: 387–388

Head Matter:
Restoney ROBINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mrs. HUCKS, Officer; Captain Pless; Sergeant Eisenboss, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 06-6180.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 22, 2006.
Decided: June 29, 2006.
Restoney Robinson, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Restoney Robinson appeals the district court's order denying relief without prejudice 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. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Robinson that failure to file timely objections to this recommen dation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Robinson failed to object to the magistrate judge's 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. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Robinson has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
Robinson's motion for appointment of counsel is denied. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.