Case Name: Gary WAITERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dr. CROSS; Mr. Benjamin; Mrs. Spike; Mr. Marshall; Mr. Qumbley, official and individual capacities, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-05-24
Citations: 430 F. App'x 244
Docket Number: No. 11-6166
Parties: Gary WAITERS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Dr. CROSS; Mr. Benjamin; Mrs. Spike; Mr. Marshall; Mr. Qumbley, official and individual capacities, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 430
Pages: 244–245

Head Matter:
Gary WAITERS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Dr. CROSS; Mr. Benjamin; Mrs. Spike; Mr. Marshall; Mr. Qumbley, official and individual capacities, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 11-6166.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 19, 2011.
Decided: May 24, 2011.
Gary Waiters, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Hodges Waldron, Jr., Griffith & Sadler, PA, Beaufort, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Gary Waiters 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 Waiters that failure to timely file specific 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). Waiters has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific 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.