Case Name: Leon RATLIFF, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GUILFORD COUNTY COURT; Jaqueline Vann; Johnathan Keeler; Clerk of Court; Judge Jan H. Samet, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-01-20
Citations: 589 F. App'x 189
Docket Number: No. 14-2082
Parties: Leon RATLIFF, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GUILFORD COUNTY COURT; Jaqueline Vann; Johnathan Keeler; Clerk of Court; Judge Jan H. Samet, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 589
Pages: 189–189

Head Matter:
Leon RATLIFF, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GUILFORD COUNTY COURT; Jaqueline Vann; Johnathan Keeler; Clerk of Court; Judge Jan H. Samet, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-2082.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 15, 2015.
Decided: Jan. 20, 2015.
Leon Ratliff, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Leon Ratliff appeals the district court's order dismissing his complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (2012). The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 686(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Ratliff 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. Am, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Ratliff 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.