Case Name: Steve LESTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Karen C. RATIGAN, State Assistant Attorney General, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-11-07
Citations: 487 F. App'x 125
Docket Number: No. 12-6661
Parties: Steve LESTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Karen C. RATIGAN, State Assistant Attorney General, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 487
Pages: 125–126

Head Matter:
Steve LESTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Karen C. RATIGAN, State Assistant Attorney General, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 12-6661.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 2, 2012.
Decided: Nov. 7, 2012.
Steve Lester, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Steve Lester appeals the district court's order dismissing without prejudice as frivolous his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp.2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Lester that failure to file specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The district court adopted 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). Lester has waived appellate review 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.