Case Name: Doretha C. TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Luke GAINEY; Mr. Miller, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-10-10
Citations: 203 F. App'x 426
Docket Number: No. 06-6940
Parties: Doretha C. TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Luke GAINEY; Mr. Miller, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 203
Pages: 426–427

Head Matter:
Doretha C. TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Luke GAINEY; Mr. Miller, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 06-6940.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 28, 2006.
Decided: Oct. 10, 2006.
Doretha C. Taylor, Appellant Pro se. Tommy Evans, Jr., South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole & Pardon Service, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appel-lees.
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Doretha C. Taylor appeals the district court's order denying relief on 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 Taylor 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, Taylor 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 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). Taylor has waived appellate review by failing to timely 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.