Case Name: Jerry Alexander CANZATER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kenneth SCOTT, Sergeant; Jeremy Felder, Officer; Officer Hudson; Officer Likely, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-27
Citations: 363 F. App'x 267
Docket Number: No. 09-7351
Parties: Jerry Alexander CANZATER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kenneth SCOTT, Sergeant; Jeremy Felder, Officer; Officer Hudson; Officer Likely, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 363
Pages: 267–268

Head Matter:
Jerry Alexander CANZATER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kenneth SCOTT, Sergeant; Jeremy Felder, Officer; Officer Hudson; Officer Likely, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-7351.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 19, 2010.
Decided: Jan. 27, 2010.
Jerry Alexander Canzater, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel C. Plyler, Davidson & Lindemann, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jerry Alexander Canzater appeals the district court's orders dismissing with prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint and denying his subsequent Fed. R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion. 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 the complaint be dismissed with prejudice and advised Canzater 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, Canzater failed to timely 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). Canzater has waived appellate review by failing to timely file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm both orders from which Canzater appeals. We deny Appellees' motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
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.