Case Name: Edward R. ROUSE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION; West Virginia Supreme Court; West Virginia Civil Court; Capital One Financial Corporation; Paul White Chevrolet Corporation, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-03-17
Citations: 89 F. App'x 431
Docket Number: No. 03-2280
Parties: Edward R. ROUSE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION; West Virginia Supreme Court; West Virginia Civil Court; Capital One Financial Corporation; Paul White Chevrolet Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 89
Pages: 431–432

Head Matter:
Edward R. ROUSE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION; West Virginia Supreme Court; West Virginia Civil Court; Capital One Financial Corporation; Paul White Chevrolet Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 03-2280.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 11, 2004.
Decided March 17, 2004.
Edward R. Rouse, Appellant pro se.
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Edward R. Rouse appeals the district court's order dismissing 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 Rouse that failure to timely file specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Rouse failed to file specific objections 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). Rouse has waived appellate review by failing to file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral ar gument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED