Case Name: Jackqulin TIMMONS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RICHLAND COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-06-05
Citations: 473 F. App'x 190
Docket Number: No. 12-1120
Parties: Jackqulin TIMMONS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RICHLAND COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 473
Pages: 190–191

Head Matter:
Jackqulin TIMMONS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RICHLAND COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 12-1120.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 31, 2012.
Decided: June 5, 2012.
Jackqulin Timmons, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin M. Mabry, Janet Elizabeth Rhodes, Mabry Law Firm, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jackqulin Timmons appeals the district court's order denying relief on her employment discrimination 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.2011). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Timmons that failure to file timely specific 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 noncomplianee. 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). Timmons has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
We grant Timmons' motion to file a cassette tape. 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.