Case Name: Anthony Maurice PEAKE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Marlane BECKER; Richard Montoni; Paul Buchanan; Lesley Moxley; Timothy Smith; Melissa Blizzard; Scott Crossman; Jason G. Bettis; John Carter; Vera Pearson; George Collins; Louis F. Foy; Ernest Lee; Daisey Blue; Jacqueline Mull; Malviri Sutton; Virgil Hollingsworth; Ed Brown; Jeff Hudson; Beverly Yvette Jackson; Donna Thomas; John Olsen; Jacob Evans, Jr.; Amiel Rossabi; Carla West, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-04-25
Citations: 646 F. App'x 330
Docket Number: No. 15-2315
Parties: Anthony Maurice PEAKE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Marlane BECKER; Richard Montoni; Paul Buchanan; Lesley Moxley; Timothy Smith; Melissa Blizzard; Scott Crossman; Jason G. Bettis; John Carter; Vera Pearson; George Collins; Louis F. Foy; Ernest Lee; Daisey Blue; Jacqueline Mull; Malviri Sutton; Virgil Hollingsworth; Ed Brown; Jeff Hudson; Beverly Yvette Jackson; Donna Thomas; John Olsen; Jacob Evans, Jr.; Amiel Rossabi; Carla West, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 646
Pages: 330–331

Head Matter:
Anthony Maurice PEAKE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Marlane BECKER; Richard Montoni; Paul Buchanan; Lesley Moxley; Timothy Smith; Melissa Blizzard; Scott Crossman; Jason G. Bettis; John Carter; Vera Pearson; George Collins; Louis F. Foy; Ernest Lee; Daisey Blue; Jacqueline Mull; Malviri Sutton; Virgil Hollingsworth; Ed Brown; Jeff Hudson; Beverly Yvette Jackson; Donna Thomas; John Olsen; Jacob Evans, Jr.; Amiel Rossabi; Carla West, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-2315.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 21, 2016.
Decided: April 25, 2016.
Anthony Maurice Peake, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Maurice Peake appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) 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 relief be denied and advised Peake 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). Peake 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.