Case Name: Debbie HUGHEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GREENVILLE HOSPITAL SYSTEM, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-11-20
Citations: 352 F. App'x 810
Docket Number: No. 09-1933
Parties: Debbie HUGHEY, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. GREENVILLE HOSPITAL SYSTEM, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 352
Pages: 810–811

Head Matter:
Debbie HUGHEY, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. GREENVILLE HOSPITAL SYSTEM, Defendant—Appellee.
No. 09-1933.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 17, 2009.
Decided: Nov. 20, 2009.
Debbie Hughey, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Allen Bright, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, PC, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Debbie Hughey 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. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Hughey 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, Hughey failed to object to the magistrate judge's 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). Hughey has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific 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.