Case Name: Bernard Kirk BARNES, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Adrian Jackson; Martin Morgan; David Johnson; Jonathan Carroll; Hasson Craig; Reginald Fiyer; Carlos Anderson; Ernest Bates; Johnny Bravo; Mary Cook; David Dupree; Willie Brown; Maurice Kinard; Tyrone Wilson; John Wright; James Mayers; Melvin Dreher; Rio Reed, Plaintiffs, v. Joseph BOCHENEK, Defendant-Appellee, and Leon Lott, Sheriff of Richland County, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-01-28
Citations: 25 F. App'x 203
Docket Number: No. 01-7397
Parties: Bernard Kirk BARNES, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Adrian Jackson; Martin Morgan; David Johnson; Jonathan Carroll; Hasson Craig; Reginald Fiyer; Carlos Anderson; Ernest Bates; Johnny Bravo; Mary Cook; David Dupree; Willie Brown; Maurice Kinard; Tyrone Wilson; John Wright; James Mayers; Melvin Dreher; Rio Reed, Plaintiffs, v. Joseph BOCHENEK, Defendant-Appellee, and Leon Lott, Sheriff of Richland County, Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 25
Pages: 203–203

Head Matter:
Bernard Kirk BARNES, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Adrian Jackson; Martin Morgan; David Johnson; Jonathan Carroll; Hasson Craig; Reginald Fiyer; Carlos Anderson; Ernest Bates; Johnny Bravo; Mary Cook; David Dupree; Willie Brown; Maurice Kinard; Tyrone Wilson; John Wright; James Mayers; Melvin Dreher; Rio Reed, Plaintiffs, v. Joseph BOCHENEK, Defendant-Appellee, and Leon Lott, Sheriff of Richland County, Defendant.
No. 01-7397.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 17, 2002.
Decided Jan. 28, 2002.
Bernard Kirk Barnes, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Bernard Kirk Barnes appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001) complaint. Barnes' case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Barnes 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, Barnes failed to object to the magistrate judge's recommendation.
The timely filing of 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). Barnes has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We deny the Appellee's motion to dismiss. 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.