Case Name: Marian BROOKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RICHMOND CITY JAIL FEMALE HOUSING UNIT MEDICAL DEPARTMENT; Nurse Ford, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-11-04
Citations: 79 F. App'x 612
Docket Number: No. 03-7024
Parties: Marian BROOKS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. RICHMOND CITY JAIL FEMALE HOUSING UNIT MEDICAL DEPARTMENT; Nurse Ford, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 79
Pages: 612–613

Head Matter:
Marian BROOKS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. RICHMOND CITY JAIL FEMALE HOUSING UNIT MEDICAL DEPARTMENT; Nurse Ford, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 03-7024.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 15, 2003.
Decided Nov. 4, 2003.
Marian Brooks, Appellant pro se.
Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
Marian Brooks appeals the district court's order dismissing her 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 Brooks 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, Brooks failed to object 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. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Brooks 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