Case Name: Robert Joseph BLAKE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Paul PERRY; Russell Matheny, Captain; James McCloud, Captain; One From Mental Health, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-21
Citations: 435 F. App'x 276
Docket Number: No. 11-6613
Parties: Robert Joseph BLAKE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Paul PERRY; Russell Matheny, Captain; James McCloud, Captain; One From Mental Health, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 435
Pages: 276–277

Head Matter:
Robert Joseph BLAKE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Paul PERRY; Russell Matheny, Captain; James McCloud, Captain; One From Mental Health, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-6613.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 16, 2011.
Decided: June 21, 2011.
Robert Joseph Blake, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Joseph Blake 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.2010). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Blake 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). Blake 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.