Case Name: Thomas Louis DAVIS, Rev, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Christine WILSON; James Bukoffsky; Brian Chapman; Anthony Dore; Larry Weidner; Eric Erickson; State of South Carolina; Matthew Friedman, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-09-04
Citations: 539 F. App'x 145
Docket Number: No. 13-6668
Parties: Thomas Louis DAVIS, Rev, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Christine WILSON; James Bukoffsky; Brian Chapman; Anthony Dore; Larry Weidner; Eric Erickson; State of South Carolina; Matthew Friedman, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 539
Pages: 145–146

Head Matter:
Thomas Louis DAVIS, Rev, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Christine WILSON; James Bukoffsky; Brian Chapman; Anthony Dore; Larry Weidner; Eric Erickson; State of South Carolina; Matthew Friedman, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-6668.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 29, 2013.
Decided: Sept. 4, 2013.
Thomas Louis Davis, Appellant Pro Se.
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Thomas Louis Davis appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Davis's civil complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp.2013). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Davis that failure to file timely, specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Davis failed to file specific objections 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). Davis has waived appellate review of his claims 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.