Case Name: Kingdawud BURGESS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden ATKINSON, FCI Edgefield, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-04-04
Citations: 565 F. App'x 161
Docket Number: No. 13-7800
Parties: Kingdawud BURGESS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden ATKINSON, FCI Edgefield, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 565
Pages: 161–162

Head Matter:
Kingdawud BURGESS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden ATKINSON, FCI Edgefield, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 13-7800.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 28, 2014.
Decided: April 4, 2014.
Kingdawud Burgess, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Kingdawud Majahid Burgess, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. In the report and recommendation, the magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Burgess 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, Burgess 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). Burgess 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.