Case Name: Emanuel Richard HOWARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jeradine CHILDS, Chief Judge 5th Cir; Tivis Therland, Atty at Trial; Anne Spears Walsh, 5th Cir Solicitor; William Byars, Jr., Director of SCDC; Kela Evans Thomas, Director Dept PPPS, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-11-07
Citations: 496 F. App'x 312
Docket Number: No. 12-1589
Parties: Emanuel Richard HOWARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jeradine CHILDS, Chief Judge 5th Cir; Tivis Therland, Atty at Trial; Anne Spears Walsh, 5th Cir Solicitor; William Byars, Jr., Director of SCDC; Kela Evans Thomas, Director Dept PPPS, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 496
Pages: 312–312

Head Matter:
Emanuel Richard HOWARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jeradine CHILDS, Chief Judge 5th Cir; Tivis Therland, Atty at Trial; Anne Spears Walsh, 5th Cir Solicitor; William Byars, Jr., Director of SCDC; Kela Evans Thomas, Director Dept PPPS, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-1589.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 2, 2012.
Decided: Nov. 7, 2012.
Emanuel Richard Howard, 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Emanuel Richard Howard appeals the district court's order denying relief on 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 Howard 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 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). Howard 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.