Case Name: Adrian Marion SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Warden John McCALL; Captain Melvin Boseman; Captain Tina Syphertt; Dennis Patterson, Division of Operations; Major Marsh, Defendants-Appellees, and South Carolina Department of Corrections; SCDS Classification Bellinger, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-08-02
Citations: 442 F. App'x 20
Docket Number: No. 11-6443
Parties: Adrian Marion SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Warden John McCALL; Captain Melvin Boseman; Captain Tina Syphertt; Dennis Patterson, Division of Operations; Major Marsh, Defendants-Appellees, and South Carolina Department of Corrections; SCDS Classification Bellinger, Defendants.
Judges: Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 442
Pages: 20–21

Head Matter:
Adrian Marion SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Warden John McCALL; Captain Melvin Boseman; Captain Tina Syphertt; Dennis Patterson, Division of Operations; Major Marsh, Defendants-Appellees, and South Carolina Department of Corrections; SCDS Classification Bellinger, Defendants.
No. 11-6443.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 28, 2011.
Decided: Aug. 2, 2011.
Adrian Marion Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Evan Markus Gessner, Lide & Pauley, LLC, Lexington, South Carolina, for Ap-pellees.
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Adrian Marion Smith appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. The dis trict court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 686(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp.2011). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Smith that failure to file timely specific 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). Smith has waived appellate review by failing to file specific 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.