Case Name: Willie M. GODLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES; State of North Carolina, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-07
Citations: 397 F. App'x 857
Docket Number: No. 10-1728
Parties: Willie M. GODLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES; State of North Carolina, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 397
Pages: 857–857

Head Matter:
Willie M. GODLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES; State of North Carolina, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-1728.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 30, 2010.
Decided: Oct. 7, 2010.
Willie M. Godley, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Willie M. Godley appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2010). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Godley 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). Godley has waived appellate review by failing 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.