Case Name: Constance Hauck ADAMSON, a/k/a Constance S. Hauck, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOCIALIST CORPORATION OF KY, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-11-24
Citations: 585 F. App'x 263
Docket Number: No. 14-2028
Parties: Constance Hauck ADAMSON, a/k/a Constance S. Hauck, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOCIALIST CORPORATION OF KY, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 585
Pages: 263–263

Head Matter:
Constance Hauck ADAMSON, a/k/a Constance S. Hauck, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOCIALIST CORPORATION OF KY, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 14-2028.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 20, 2014.
Decided: Nov. 24, 2014.
Constance Hauck Adamson, Appellant Pro Se.
Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not bidding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Constance Hauck Adamson appeals the district court's order dismissing her civil complaint without prejudice. 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 Adamson 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 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). Adamson has waived appellate review by failing to 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.
The district court's order is final and appeal-able. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir.1993).