Case Name: Larrietta JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; Robin Lennox-Auston; Lisa Wright, Privacy Officer; Janet Henderson; Diane R. Godman, Compensation & Pension Examiner, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-11-21
Citations: 670 F. App'x 780
Docket Number: No. 16-1777
Parties: Larrietta JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; Robin Lennox-Auston; Lisa Wright, Privacy Officer; Janet Henderson; Diane R. Godman, Compensation & Pension Examiner, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 670
Pages: 780–781

Head Matter:
Larrietta JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; Robin Lennox-Auston; Lisa Wright, Privacy Officer; Janet Henderson; Diane R. Godman, Compensation & Pension Examiner, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-1777
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: November 17, 2016
Decided: November 21, 2016
Larrietta Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Tiffany M. Mallory, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Larrietta Johnson appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing her complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that the complaint be dismissed and advised Johnson 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). Johnson 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED