Case Name: Robert C. LOCKE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Director for the Virginia Department of Corrections; Helen F. Fahey, Chairwoman for the Virginia Parole Board, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-05-22
Citations: 180 F. App'x 481
Docket Number: No. 05-7976
Parties: Robert C. LOCKE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Director for the Virginia Department of Corrections; Helen F. Fahey, Chairwoman for the Virginia Parole Board, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 180
Pages: 481–482

Head Matter:
Robert C. LOCKE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Director for the Virginia Department of Corrections; Helen F. Fahey, Chairwoman for the Virginia Parole Board, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 05-7976.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 16, 2006.
Decided: May 22, 2006.
Robert C. Locke, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Robert C. Locke appeals the district court's order dismissing 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 Locke 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, Locke 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 that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-16 (4th Cir.1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Locke 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