Case Name: Nathanael Lenard REYNOLDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Chief Deputy Dudley MUSIER; Officer Watson, Defendants-Appellees, and Sheriff Michael Johnson, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-11-23
Citations: 671 F. App'x 47
Docket Number: No. 16-7025
Parties: Nathanael Lenard REYNOLDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Chief Deputy Dudley MUSIER; Officer Watson, Defendants-Appellees, and Sheriff Michael Johnson, Defendant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 671
Pages: 47–48

Head Matter:
Nathanael Lenard REYNOLDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Chief Deputy Dudley MUSIER; Officer Watson, Defendants-Appellees, and Sheriff Michael Johnson, Defendant.
No. 16-7025
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: November 18, 2016
Decided: November 23, 2016
Nathanael Lenard Reynolds, Appellant Pro Se. Edgar Lloyd Willcox, II, WILL-COX BTJYCK & WILLIAMS, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Nathanael Lenard Reynolds appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Reynolds that failure to file timely 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). Reynolds 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. The motion for prepa ration of a transcript at government expense is denied.
AFFIRMED