Case Name: Michael D. WALLACE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COLLETON COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; Southern Health Partners, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-10-06
Citations: 203 F. App'x 425
Docket Number: No. 06-6690
Parties: Michael D. WALLACE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COLLETON COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; Southern Health Partners, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 203
Pages: 425–426

Head Matter:
Michael D. WALLACE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COLLETON COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; Southern Health Partners, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 06-6690.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 28, 2006.
Decided: Oct. 6, 2006.
Michael D. Wallace, Appellant Pro Se. Christy Scott Stephens, Bogoslow, Jones, Stephens & Duffie, P.A., Walterboro, South Carolina; Elliott T. Halio, Halio & Halio, Charleston, South Carolina, for Ap-pellees.
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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Michael D. Wallace appeals the district court's order denying relief on 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 Wallace 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, Wallace 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 noneompliance. 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). Wallace 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.