Case Name: Willie James JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; York County; York County Sheriff's Department; Chester County; Chester County Sheriff's Department, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-06-26
Citations: 38 F. App'x 931
Docket Number: No. 02-6323
Parties: Willie James JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; York County; York County Sheriff's Department; Chester County; Chester County Sheriff's Department, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 38
Pages: 931–931

Head Matter:
Willie James JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; York County; York County Sheriff's Department; Chester County; Chester County Sheriff's Department, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 02-6323.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 20, 2002.
Decided June 26, 2002.
Willie James Jones, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Willie Jones, a South Carolina inmate, appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint. Jones's case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Jones that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Jones failed to object to the magistrate judges recommendation.
The timely filing of 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). Jones 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.