Case Name: Quinton L. BRISBANE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BEAUFORT COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; C.L. Wilson, Corporal; J. Purdy, Sergeant; S. Rodriguez, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-05-11
Citations: 227 F. App'x 278
Docket Number: No. 06-6698
Parties: Quinton L. BRISBANE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BEAUFORT COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; C.L. Wilson, Corporal; J. Purdy, Sergeant; S. Rodriguez, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 227
Pages: 278–279

Head Matter:
Quinton L. BRISBANE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BEAUFORT COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; C.L. Wilson, Corporal; J. Purdy, Sergeant; S. Rodriguez, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 06-6698.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 31, 2006.
Decided: May 11, 2007.
Quinton L. Brisbane, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Hodges Waldron, Jr.; Katy Anne Rice, Carolina Litigation Associates, LLC, Bluffton, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed as modified by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Quinton L. Brisbane seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on 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 Brisbane that failure to file timely and specific objections to this rec ommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Brisbane's objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation were non-specific.
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). Brisbane has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court as modified to reflect that the dismissal of Brisbane's pendent state law claims should be dismissed without prejudice.
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 AS MODIFIED.