Case Name: Roger Carl BERRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James HUNT; Mrs. Williams; Ms. Cambell; Ms. Smith, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-07-05
Citations: 13 F. App'x 148
Docket Number: No. 01-6581
Parties: Roger Carl BERRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James HUNT; Mrs. Williams; Ms. Cambell; Ms. Smith, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit J.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 13
Pages: 148–149

Head Matter:
Roger Carl BERRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James HUNT; Mrs. Williams; Ms. Cambell; Ms. Smith, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 01-6581.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 21, 2001.
Decided July 5, 2001.
Roger Carl Berry, pro se.
Mary Mercer, Office of the Attorney General of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC, for appellees.
Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit J.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Roger Carl Berry appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2000) complaint. Appellant's case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Appellant that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Appellant failed to object to the magistrate judge's recommendation.
The timely filing of 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 that failure to object will waive appellate review. See 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). Appellant has waived appellate review by failing to file 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.