Case Name: Clayton Howard TISDALE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ADMINISTRATOR OF LORIS COMMUNITY HOSPITAL; the South Carolina Highway Patrol; R. Dale Trevathan, Officer, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-09-07
Citations: 199 F. App'x 257
Docket Number: No. 06-6629
Parties: Clayton Howard TISDALE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. ADMINISTRATOR OF LORIS COMMUNITY HOSPITAL; the South Carolina Highway Patrol; R. Dale Trevathan, Officer, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 199
Pages: 257–257

Head Matter:
Clayton Howard TISDALE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. ADMINISTRATOR OF LORIS COMMUNITY HOSPITAL; the South Carolina Highway Patrol; R. Dale Trevathan, Officer, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 06-6629.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 31, 2006.
Decided: Sept. 7, 2006.
Clayton Howard Tisdale, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Clayton Howard Tisdale appeals the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Tisdale 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, Tisdale 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). Tisdale 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.