Case Name: Shane Brandon DAVIDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William CATOE, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections; Carl Fredrick; Clifford Glover, Major; James P. Hall, Captain, Defendants-Appellees; Shane Brandon Davidson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. South Carolina Department of Public Safety; Boykin Rose, Director; Tom Rosson, Construction Superintendent; Bruce Clonts, Supervisor, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-05-03
Citations: 8 F. App'x 223
Docket Number: Nos. 00-7516, 00-7517
Parties: Shane Brandon DAVIDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William CATOE, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections; Carl Fredrick; Clifford Glover, Major; James P. Hall, Captain, Defendants-Appellees. Shane Brandon Davidson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. South Carolina Department of Public Safety; Boykin Rose, Director; Tom Rosson, Construction Superintendent; Bruce Clonts, Supervisor, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 8
Pages: 223–224

Head Matter:
Shane Brandon DAVIDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William CATOE, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections; Carl Fredrick; Clifford Glover, Major; James P. Hall, Captain, Defendants-Appellees. Shane Brandon Davidson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. South Carolina Department of Public Safety; Boykin Rose, Director; Tom Rosson, Construction Superintendent; Bruce Clonts, Supervisor, Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 00-7516, 00-7517.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 27, 2001.
Decided May 3, 2001.
Shane Brandon Davidson, pro se. William Michael Duncan, Raymon E. Lark, Jr., Austin, Lewis & Rogers, P.A., Columbia, SC, for appellees.
Before LUTTIG and DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Shane Brandon Davidson appeals the district court's orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2000) complaints. Davidson's cases were referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Davidson that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommenda tion. Despite this warning, Davidson failed to object to the magistrate judge's recommendation.
The timely filing of 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 that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir.1985); see also Thomas v. Arm, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Davidson 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.