Case Name: Matthew CABBIL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-03-21
Citations: 641 F. App'x 264
Docket Number: No. 15-2426
Parties: Matthew CABBIL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 641
Pages: 264–264

Head Matter:
Matthew CABBIL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15-2426.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 17, 2016.
Decided: March 21, 2016.
Matthew Cabbil, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Matthew Cabbil seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his civil complaint without prejudice. The district court referred this- case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Cabbil that failure to file timely 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. 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). Cabbil has waived appellate review by failing to file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal.
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.