Case Name: Charles Oscar McMILLON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. George T. HAGAN; State of South Carolina, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-02-28
Citations: 56 F. App'x 207
Docket Number: No. 03-6038
Parties: Charles Oscar McMILLON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. George T. HAGAN; State of South Carolina, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 56
Pages: 207–208

Head Matter:
Charles Oscar McMILLON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. George T. HAGAN; State of South Carolina, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 03-6038.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 20, 2003.
Decided Feb. 28, 2003.
Charles Oscar McMillon, Appellant Pro Se.
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Charles Oscar McMillon appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised McMillon 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, McMillon failed to file timely 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 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. Am, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). McMillon has waived appellate review by failing to file timely 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.