Case Name: Gregory A. RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. L. LEE, Correctional Officer/Security Personnel; Records Department; T.L. Johnson, Correctional Officer/Security Personnel; Ronald Angelone, Director/Supervisor Virginia State Penal Institutions; Board of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-04-25
Citations: 33 F. App'x 100
Docket Number: No. 01-8000
Parties: Gregory A. RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. L. LEE, Correctional Officer/Security Personnel; Records Department; T.L. Johnson, Correctional Officer/Security Personnel; Ronald Angelone, Director/Supervisor Virginia State Penal Institutions; Board of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 33
Pages: 100–101

Head Matter:
Gregory A. RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. L. LEE, Correctional Officer/Security Personnel; Records Department; T.L. Johnson, Correctional Officer/Security Personnel; Ronald Angelone, Director/Supervisor Virginia State Penal Institutions; Board of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 01-8000.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 18, 2002.
Decided April 25, 2002.
Gregory A. Richardson, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Gregory A. Richardson appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001) complaint. Richardson'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 Richardson 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, Richardson failed to object to the magistrate judge's 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). Richardson 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.