Case Name: Perry Fernese WESLEY, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Vanessa P. ADAMS, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-10-03
Citations: 144 F. App'x 989
Docket Number: No. 05-6971
Parties: Perry Fernese WESLEY, Sr., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Vanessa P. ADAMS, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 144
Pages: 989–989

Head Matter:
Perry Fernese WESLEY, Sr., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Vanessa P. ADAMS, Defendant—Appellee.
No. 05-6971.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 27, 2005.
Decided Oct. 3, 2005.
Perry Fernese Wesley, Sr., Appellant pro se.
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Perry Fernese Wesley, Sr., appeals the district court's order dismissing his action requesting a temporary restraining order or injunctive relief pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). 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 Wesley that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Wesley 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 that failure to object will waive appellate review. See 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). Wesley has waived appellate review by fading to file objections 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED