Case Name: Frank BOSTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Debie BENJAMIN, property control officer; John Doe, deputy warden, sued in his individual capacity; Jane Doe, head property control officer, sued in her individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-05-08
Citations: 34 F. App'x 107
Docket Number: No. 02-6297
Parties: Frank BOSTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Debie BENJAMIN, property control officer; John Doe, deputy warden, sued in his individual capacity; Jane Doe, head property control officer, sued in her individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 34
Pages: 107–108

Head Matter:
Frank BOSTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Debie BENJAMIN, property control officer; John Doe, deputy warden, sued in his individual capacity; Jane Doe, head property control officer, sued in her individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 02-6297.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 25, 2002.
Decided May 8, 2002.
Frank Boston, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Foster McLeod, Harris & McLeod, Cheraw, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Frank Boston appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001) complaint. Appellant'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 Appellant 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, Appellant failed to object to the magistrate judge's recommendation in a timely manner.
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). Appellant has waived appellate review by failing to file timely 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 be fore the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.