Case Name: David BACH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-10-22
Citations: 585 F. App'x 31
Docket Number: No. 14-1595
Parties: David BACH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 585
Pages: 31–31

Head Matter:
David BACH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 14-1595.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 2, 2014.
Decided: Oct. 22, 2014.
David Bach, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Bach appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 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 Bach 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 recommendatipn 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). Bach has waived appellate review by failing to file objections. 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.