Case Name: Clayton Howard TISDALE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY PATROL; R.D. Trevathon, the arrested officer, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-08-27
Citations: 347 F. App'x 966
Docket Number: No. 09-6867
Parties: Clayton Howard TISDALE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY PATROL; R.D. Trevathon, the arrested officer, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 347
Pages: 966–967

Head Matter:
Clayton Howard TISDALE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY PATROL; R.D. Trevathon, the arrested officer, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-6867.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 20, 2009.
Decided: Aug. 27, 2009.
Clayton Howard Tisdale, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Clayton Howard Tisdale 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. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Tisdale that failure to file timely and specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Tisdale failed to object 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 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). Tisdale 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.