Case Name: Leonard CARTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. T. FOWLKES, Director Law Library Sussex I State Prison; Paul Cummings, Treatment Programs Supervisor; Ronald J. Angelone, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-11-15
Citations: 22 F. App'x 142
Docket Number: No. 01-6933
Parties: Leonard CARTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. T. FOWLKES, Director Law Library Sussex I State Prison; Paul Cummings, Treatment Programs Supervisor; Ronald J. Angelone, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 22
Pages: 142–143

Head Matter:
Leonard CARTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. T. FOWLKES, Director Law Library Sussex I State Prison; Paul Cummings, Treatment Programs Supervisor; Ronald J. Angelone, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 01-6933.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 8, 2001.
Decided Nov. 15, 2001.
Leonard Carter, pro se.
Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Leonard Carter appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001) complaint. Carter'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 Carter 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, Carter 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, 845-6 (4th Cir.1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Carter 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 and deny Carter's motion for appointment of counsel because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.