Case Name: Larry Ladain MYERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Veda PLAIR; Keith Moore, Officer; K. Jenkins, Officer, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-01
Citations: 114 F. App'x 112
Docket Number: No. 04-7549
Parties: Larry Ladain MYERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Veda PLAIR; Keith Moore, Officer; K. Jenkins, Officer, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 114
Pages: 112–113

Head Matter:
Larry Ladain MYERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Veda PLAIR; Keith Moore, Officer; K. Jenkins, Officer, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 04-7549.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 18, 2004.
Decided: Dec. 1, 2004.
Larry LaDain Myers, Appellant pro se.
Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Larry LaDain Myers appeals the district court's order dismissing his 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 Myers 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, Myers 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 that failure to object will waive appellate review. See 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). Myers 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 ade quately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED