Case Name: Gregory PALMORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WALMART, White Horse Road, Greenville, South Carolina, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-09-16
Citations: 332 F. App'x 863
Docket Number: No. 09-7057
Parties: Gregory PALMORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WALMART, White Horse Road, Greenville, South Carolina, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 332
Pages: 863–864

Head Matter:
Gregory PALMORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WALMART, White Horse Road, Greenville, South Carolina, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 09-7057.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 10, 2009.
Decided: Sept. 16, 2009.
Gregory Palmore, Appellant Pro Se. Kurt M. Rozelsky, Smith Moore Leather-wood, LLP, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gregory Palmore appeals the district court's order denying relief on his com-2olaint. 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 Palmore 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, Palmore failed to object specifically 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). Palmore has waived appellate l-eview by fading 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.