Case Name: Don BOYD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ANGELICA TEXTILE SERVICES INC; Fisher & Phillips LLP; Reyburn W. Lominack, III; C. Frederick W. Manning, II; State of South Carolina, South Carolina Human Affairs Commission; H. Ronald Stanley, individually and proprietor; United States of America, United States District Court for the District of South Carolina; United States of America, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-12-26
Citations: 491 F. App'x 425
Docket Number: No. 12-7343
Parties: Don BOYD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ANGELICA TEXTILE SERVICES INC; Fisher & Phillips LLP; Reyburn W. Lominack, III; C. Frederick W. Manning, II; State of South Carolina, South Carolina Human Affairs Commission; H. Ronald Stanley, individually and proprietor; United States of America, United States District Court for the District of South Carolina; United States of America, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 491
Pages: 425–426

Head Matter:
Don BOYD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ANGELICA TEXTILE SERVICES INC; Fisher & Phillips LLP; Reyburn W. Lominack, III; C. Frederick W. Manning, II; State of South Carolina, South Carolina Human Affairs Commission; H. Ronald Stanley, individually and proprietor; United States of America, United States District Court for the District of South Carolina; United States of America, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-7343.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 20, 2012.
Decided: Dec. 26, 2012.
Don Boyd, Appellant Pro Se.
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Don Boyd appeals the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss his civil action against Defendants after a 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (2006) review. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in Boyd's informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Boyd's informal brief does not challenge the district court's disposi-tive holdings, Boyd has forfeited appellate review of the district court's order. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. See Boyd v. Angelica Textile Servs., No. 3:12-cv-00334-JFA, 2012 WL 2237167 (D.S.C. June 15, 2012). 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.
Because the timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge's recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of a district court order adopting that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance, see Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir.1985), Boyd also waived appellate review over the district court's order by failing to file specific objections after receiving proper notice.