Case Name: Stephen C. STANKO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael MOORE, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; Willie Weldon, Warden of Lieber Correctional Institution; Rickie Harrison, Warden of Kershaw Correctional Institution; Robin Chavis, Associate Warden of Kershaw Correctional Institution; Stanley Burtt, Warden of Kershaw Correctional Institution, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-03-15
Citations: 5 F. App'x 303
Docket Number: No. 00-7541
Parties: Stephen C. STANKO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael MOORE, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; Willie Weldon, Warden of Lieber Correctional Institution; Rickie Harrison, Warden of Kershaw Correctional Institution; Robin Chavis, Associate Warden of Kershaw Correctional Institution; Stanley Burtt, Warden of Kershaw Correctional Institution, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 5
Pages: 303–304

Head Matter:
Stephen C. STANKO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael MOORE, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; Willie Weldon, Warden of Lieber Correctional Institution; Rickie Harrison, Warden of Kershaw Correctional Institution; Robin Chavis, Associate Warden of Kershaw Correctional Institution; Stanley Burtt, Warden of Kershaw Correctional Institution, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 00-7541.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2001.
Decided March 15, 2001.
Stephen C. Stanko, pro se. Terry B. Millar, Rock Hill, SC, for appellees.
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Stephen C. Stanko appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. Stanko's case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Stanko that failure to file specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Stanko failed to file specific objections 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 Thom as v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Stanko 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.