Case Name: Michael E. SANDERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joseph BATTLES, administrator for the Abbeville County Detention Center in his official and individual capacity; Charles Goodwin, Sheriff in his official and individual capacity; Leigh Ann McMahan, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-10-16
Citations: 486 F. App'x 341
Docket Number: No. 12-7312
Parties: Michael E. SANDERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joseph BATTLES, administrator for the Abbeville County Detention Center in his official and individual capacity; Charles Goodwin, Sheriff in his official and individual capacity; Leigh Ann McMahan, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 486
Pages: 341–342

Head Matter:
Michael E. SANDERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joseph BATTLES, administrator for the Abbeville County Detention Center in his official and individual capacity; Charles Goodwin, Sheriff in his official and individual capacity; Leigh Ann McMahan, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-7312.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 11, 2012.
Decided: Oct. 16, 2012.
Michael E. Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. Russell W. Harter, Jr., Chapman, Harter & Groves, PA, Greenville, South Carolina; Elliott T. Halio, Halio & Halio, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael E. Sanders 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.2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Sanders that failure to file timely 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). Sanders 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 ade quately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.